remarkable_canvas

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms read-only nature. Also describes the fallback behavior (embedded PNG for non-interactive clients) and the interactive panel for supporting clients, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples). Every sentence is informative and concise, no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (PNG for non-interactive clients) and covers usage, parameters, examples, and differentiation from siblings. It provides a complete understanding for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters: document is a name/path with recommendation to use remarkable_browse, and page is 1-indexed with default 1. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema structure.

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?

Clearly states it opens a reMarkable page in an interactive canvas viewer. Distinguishes from sibling remarkable_image by noting that for plain image extraction without the interactive surface, the user should use remarkable_image instead.

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 states that this tool is the entry point for the interactive viewer, describes behavior on different clients (MCP Apps vs. non-MCP Apps), and provides alternative tool (remarkable_image) for a different use case.

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