Read Canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it is a bounded summary with hard caps (up to 200 nodes, up to 200 edges) and content is 'preview' rather than full, which tells the agent to expect truncation. That truncation disclosure is the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and file format, then enumerates the returned payload. Every clause earns its place (counts, caps, field lists, workflow guidance), though the enumeration is lengthy enough to read as a spec rather than a quick summary.

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, so the description must carry return-value semantics — and it does: counts, capped node/edge lists, exact fields included, and the 'content preview' caveat. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

There is a single required 'path' parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with an example and .canvas pattern constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline-3 case where structured data does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Obsidian .canvas file) and precisely describes the returned structure: counts, capped nodes with id/type/position/size/content preview, and edges with source/target. This is clearly differentiated from mutation siblings like add_canvas_node/add_canvas_edge by naming them as downstream consumers.

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Use to inspect or navigate a canvas before calling add_canvas_node or add_canvas_edge.' This ties usage to a workflow and names alternatives. It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but the intended occasion is unambiguous.

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