pixelart_get_canvas_info

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating it is 'cheaper' and 'without rendering a preview image', which are helpful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose, a usage hint, then structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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-only metadata tool with one parameter and a clear return format described, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, return values, and cost comparison, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 single parameter canvas_id is described in the schema as 'Canvas to inspect.' The tool description only mentions it in the Args section without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate, a score of 3 is appropriate for adequate but minimal enrichment.

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 tool retrieves lightweight metadata (dimensions, pixel counts) without rendering a preview, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pixelart_get_canvas_preview by emphasizing it is cheaper.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when only dimensions or whether anything has been drawn are needed, and contrasts it with pixelart_get_canvas_preview as a more expensive alternative.

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