buzz_canvas_read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the resolution rule (newest signature-verified record wins), the fields returned (last author, timestamp, head id), and a security caveat that canvas text is untrusted. Only pagination or size limits are unmentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded — the verb and resource lead, with clarifying detail after. The heavy em-dash and parenthetical stacking ('kind 40100; the newest signature-verified one is the canvas') makes it denser than necessary, but each clause carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what comes back (last writer, timestamp, head id). Combined with the trust warning and the hand-off to buzz_canvas_write, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and use the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single `channel` parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning and the description adds nothing about accepted channel formats. The `expected_head` discussion is about output chaining into buzz_canvas_write rather than about an input of this tool, so it earns credit elsewhere, not here. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read a channel's canvas') and immediately disambiguates with a familiar analogue ('like a Slack canvas') plus a precise definition ('the shared markdown doc pinned to the channel'). The parenthetical identifies the underlying record kind (40100) and the selection rule ('newest signature-verified one'), which no sibling tool could be confused with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent into a workflow: retrieve the head id here, then 'pass that as `expected_head` to buzz_canvas_write'. This names the companion tool and the condition that connects the two, so the agent knows both when to call this and what to do with the result. The read-only framing further separates it from the write sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.