gh_new_canvas

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation but not detailing side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the purpose: it does not disclose whether the current canvas is closed without saving, how the optional name is applied, or what happens to unsaved work. For a document-creation tool, this is a significant behavioral transparency gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It delivers the core purpose immediately, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple creation tool, the description is not fully complete: it omits the optional name parameter and any side effects on the current canvas. The output schema may document return values, but behavioral context around creating/replacing a document is missing, which an agent needs to make safe calls.

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?

The sole parameter 'name' (default 'untitled') is described in the schema as 'Document name,' but the tool description makes no mention of it or its effect. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description does not compensate, so an agent reading the description alone would not know the new canvas can be named.

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?

The description states a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('fresh empty Grasshopper canvas'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like gh_open_file and gh_load_template, making the tool's role unambiguous. The qualifiers 'fresh empty' further clarify that this starts a blank canvas rather than loading content.

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?

The description implies usage for starting a new blank canvas but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as gh_open_file or gh_load_template. No exclusions, conditions, or prerequisite steps are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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