Select canvas

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as that selection is for subsequent capture operations. It does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior when both canvasId and canvasIndex are provided) or any side effects beyond selection.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of omitting essential details. It fails to earn its place by not adding substantial value beyond the tool name.

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 the tool having only two optional parameters and annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens after selection, how it affects other tools, or return behavior (no output schema). An agent may struggle to use it correctly without prior knowledge of the workflow.

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 provides two optional parameters (canvasId, canvasIndex) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only mentions selecting a canvas, but does not clarify the role of each parameter or when to use one over the other, leaving ambiguity.

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 action 'Select' and the resource 'WebGL canvas', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also involve canvases (e.g., webgl_list_canvases), which could create ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., webgl_list_canvases for listing canvases first). The description does not specify prerequisite steps or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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