Scans the entire canvas to detect text overflowing its frame and converts escaped newline characters into clean multiline wraps with height auto-resizing.
Pindai seluruh kanvas dan perbaiki otomatis teks yang melebihi batas kotaknya (text overflow) serta bersihkan karakter \n escaped mentah menjadi multiline wraps rapi dengan textAutoResize: "height".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 does disclose the document-wide scope and that it mutates text nodes by setting textAutoResize to "height", which is valuable, but it says nothing about reversibility, what happens to nodes that cannot be fixed, prerequisites such as an open file or GUI, or rate/performance limits on a full-canvas scan.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary action (scan canvas, fix overflow) before the secondary cleanup. It is slightly overloaded by embedding the literal textAutoResize value, but nothing is truly wasted.
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 zero-parameter global mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and the two effects well. It is still missing what the agent should expect afterward (e.g. whether the canvas is left modified with no report) and any precondition about the document being open.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing options.
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 states a specific verb and resource: scan the entire canvas and auto-fix text overflow, plus clean raw escaped \n into multiline wraps with textAutoResize "height". It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling audit_layout, which addresses an adjacent concern.
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?
Usage is only implied by the problem it solves (text overflow and escaped newlines). There is no statement of when to prefer it over audit_layout or when it should not be run, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.