read_canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns nodes and edges, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose details like whether the canvas must exist or what happens if the path is invalid, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the operation and the exact scope (nodes + edges) in six words, which is ideal for an agent scanning tool definitions.

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 read tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't clarify what 'path' refers to (file path vs. canvas ID) or what the return structure looks like, though no output schema exists. The sibling list includes list_canvases, which could provide context, but the description alone leaves a small gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. The description implies the path identifies the canvas but doesn't specify format, whether it's a file path or ID, or any constraints. With only one parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Read canvas structure (nodes + edges)' clearly identifies the verb (read), the resource (canvas), and the scope (nodes + edges). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_canvas, add_canvas_node, and add_canvas_edge, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 reading a canvas's structure, which is distinct from the many mutation tools in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_graph_neighbors or list_canvases, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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