pixelart_get_canvas_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the output is an upscaled PNG using nearest-neighbor interpolation, and the scale parameter aids visibility of small pixel art. It does not contradict 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 short and front-loaded, with a clear docstring format. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type (Image: PNG preview). It covers the scale parameter's role but lacks mention of error conditions (e.g., canvas not found) or size limits, which would improve completeness.

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%, meaning the schema provides no explanations. The description lists the two parameters (canvas_id, scale) and clarifies scale as a nearest-neighbor upscale factor, but canvas_id remains unexplained. This adds some meaning but leaves a gap.

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's purpose: 'Return the current canvas as an upscaled PNG image for visual inspection.' It specifies the verb (return), resource (canvas), and format (upscaled PNG), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that draw, create, or list canvases.

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 visual inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pixelart_get_canvas_info. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, though the purpose is straightforward.

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