Parse Canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the session-active vault resolution and that an explicit vaultPath always wins, which is important for correct invocation.

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 purpose, output, and primary alternative appear in the first two sentences. The vault-targeting note is the only additional context and is directly relevant to usage. No sentence is 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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are handled structurally. The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, the alternative tool, and the vault resolution rule. It is complete for a read-only parsing tool, though it does not mention error behavior for invalid canvas files, which is a minor gap.

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 50%: filePath is documented but vaultPath has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining vaultPath's role and precedence over the active vault, giving the agent enough semantics to use it correctly. It does not detail vaultPath's format, but the core meaning is clear.

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 ('Parse'), a specific resource ('Obsidian canvas file'), and the exact output scope ('full structure: every node ... every edge'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with canvas.connections, so an agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: use this tool for the complete graph, and use canvas.connections for neighbours of a specific node. It also clarifies the vault-targeting behavior and references vault.current and vault.select, providing clear context for when this tool applies.

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