canvas_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a required environment condition (REMEM_OFFLOAD_ENABLED=true and pipeline=mermaid) and explains the output is a compact symbolic graph rather than full logs. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but for a read-style get tool this is a reasonable disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by what the canvas is, when to use it, and a required precondition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, output nature, usage context, and environment prerequisite. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth, or error handling, but these are minor given the 'get' semantics and strong schema coverage.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions and an enum for format. The tool description adds conceptual context about the canvas but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the Mermaid task canvas for the current session.' It then explains what the canvas is and how it differs from verbose tool logs, making the tool's identity and value clear. This distinguishes it well from the many sibling knowledge, recall, and skill getters.

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 says 'Use this to see the task structure without re-reading full tool outputs,' which gives clear invocation context. It also lists environment prerequisites. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough for selection.

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