list_canvases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it doesn't mention whether listing is recursive, what the folder parameter does, or any limits/pagination. Given annotations cover safety, the description still fails to provide useful behavioral details, so it adds little value.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. While it is appropriately short, it omits essential information about the parameter and behavioral details, so it is not merely concise but incomplete. It balances between being too terse and adequately informative.

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 tool with one unclear parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the folder parameter, the output format, or any scoping behavior. An agent would struggle to use the tool correctly, especially when a folder is passed, making the definition incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter, 'folder', but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot infer the parameter's meaning (e.g., filter by folder, scope to subdirectory) from either the schema or description. This is a critical gap that the description should have filled.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('.canvas files'), and the scope ('in the vault'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like read_canvas or create_canvas. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use this tool when it needs to enumerate canvas files, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., list_notes for notes). The usage context is implied but not stated, so it meets the baseline but lacks explicit routing.

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