canon_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the path-resolution quirk ('the server's working directory is the client's, not your project's') and explains that unmatched pixels indicate gaps in region definitions. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'Show' and 'census' imply non-destructive inspection, and no contradictions exist.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds context: the main action, the optional census, the required parameter condition, and a path caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy.

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 an inspection tool with no output schema, it fully describes what is returned (canon details and census counts) and explains how to interpret results (unmatched pixels). It covers the key operational caveat about paths and leaves no obvious gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that canonPath and censusFile serve as the search origin and that censusFile also counts frame membership, plus the semantic meaning of unmatched pixels. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 uses a clear verb ('Show') with a specific resource (the resolved canon), and enumerates exactly what is shown (palette size, regions, rules, protection flags, scale table, thresholds) plus the optional census operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like canon_init or canon_learn by describing a distinct inspection/analysis action.

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?

It provides a strong usage condition ('Pass canonPath or censusFile — without either there is nowhere to search from') and warns about the server working directory. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when to prefer this over others, so it clarifies how to call but not when to choose it.

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