EOxElements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'gets attributes' and gives no detail about the return format, error behavior, whether the element must exist, or any read-only guarantees. The lack of an output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it lacks additional useful detail that could be added without much length.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description does not describe what is returned (e.g., a map of attribute names to values) or any constraints on tagName. Without an output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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% (tagName is described as 'The tag name of the element.'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attributes') and clearly scopes it to 'a specific EOxElements custom element.' It is distinct from sibling tools, which target css parts, css properties, details, events, methods, properties, slots, and stories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like get_element_properties or get_element_details. Usage is implied only by the name and resource type.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation and names the target, but does not specify return format, empty behavior, or other details. This is minimal but not misleading for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and target immediately, which is ideal for a tool description.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description is sufficient for the core purpose. It could be enhanced by noting the return shape or relationship to sibling tools, but it is complete enough for a straightforward getter.

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% and the description adds context by specifying 'EOxElements custom element', clarifying the domain beyond the schema's generic 'tag name of the element'. This helps the agent understand the expected value.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('CSS shadow parts'), and the target ('a specific EOxElements custom element'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_element_css_properties by naming the specific artifact.

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 provides clear context (use with a specific EOxElements custom element) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The distinction from sibling tools is implied by the resource name, which is adequate for a single-purpose getter.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral details such as error handling, return format, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose and usage. It could potentially mention that only custom properties (prefixed with --) are returned, but this is implied by 'CSS custom properties'.

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% (tagName is described as 'The tag name of the element'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') and explicitly identifies the resource ('CSS custom properties') and scope ('for a specific EOxElements custom element'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_css_parts and get_element_attributes.

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 when to use the tool (when you need CSS custom properties), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without formal when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe what 'full details' includes, error handling, or any other behavior such as result format. This vagueness leaves the agent without critical context.

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 a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is perfectly concise.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks specification of what 'full details' encompasses. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the return structure, making the description slightly under-specified.

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 input schema fully describes the 'tagName' parameter with 100% coverage ('The tag name of the element'), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('get') and the resource ('full details for a specific EOxElements custom element'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific aspects (attributes, css parts, events, etc.) by emphasizing 'full details.'

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get the events' without revealing what the return format is, whether it is a read-only operation (though implied), what happens if the element is not found, or any rate limits or permissions. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or restatement of the tool name. Every word adds meaning, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose and the schema covers the parameter. However, it does not mention the shape of the returned events or any edge-case behavior, and there is no annotation to provide safety context. This leaves minor gaps that prevent a perfect score.

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 schema provides a full description for the only parameter ('The tag name of the element.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema; it reinforces that the element is 'specific' but does not introduce constraints, formats, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('events'), scoped to a 'specific EOxElements custom element.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_attributes, get_element_methods, and get_element_slots, which cover different aspects of custom elements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like get_element_details or list_elements. The agent must rely on the name and description alone without further direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing return format, error behavior, registration requirements, or side-effect profile. This is minimal for a read operation but lacks important context for an agent.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information: what the tool does and its scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks detail about what constitutes 'methods,' the return structure, or how it relates to the sibling get_element_* tools, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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% with tagName described as 'The tag name of the element.' The description adds marginal context by specifying 'EOxElements custom element' but does not elaborate on accepted format or usage. This meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('methods for a specific EOxElements custom element'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_attributes, get_element_css_parts, and get_element_properties, which target different aspects of an element.

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 that the tool is used to retrieve methods for a given element, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of complementary tools or conditions that would make this the preferred choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'Get the properties' without disclosing return format, error behavior for invalid tagName, or any edge cases. This is minimal for a simple getter but still lacks useful context.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not explain what properties are returned or any failure modes, which would be expected without an output schema.

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 schema already describes tagName as 'The tag name of the element' with 100% coverage. The description adds slight context by tying it to 'a specific EOxElements custom element', but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'properties for a specific EOxElements custom element'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_element_attributes by naming the exact aspect being retrieved.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (when needing element properties), but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or direct users to sibling tools for other kinds of data.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get,' implying a read operation, but does not clarify return format, error behavior, or whether it works only for registered elements. This is minimal beyond the purpose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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 1-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks usage guidance, explicit differentiation from siblings, and any behavioral expectations. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement in context.

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% for the sole parameter tagName, with its own description. The tool description adds slight context by specifying 'EOxElements custom element,' but does not significantly enhance the schema-provided meaning.

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 'Get the slots for a specific EOxElements custom element,' identifying a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_element_attributes and get_element_events, which fetch different aspects.

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 implied by the description and sibling naming pattern: use this tool when you need slots for an element. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, which would make it clearer.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns descriptions and vanilla JS code snippets, adding some context beyond the name. However, it does not mention return format, potential errors, or read-only behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a concise two-sentence structure with the key action front-loaded ('Get the stories'), followed by a clarifying detail. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the result includes (descriptions and code snippets) and clarifies the ambiguous term 'stories.' It lacks explicit return structure and error handling, but for a straightforward getter this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with a straightforward tagName parameter. The description only restates that it is for a specific element, adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema's 'The tag name of the element.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'stories (examples/snippets)' for an EOxElements custom element, clearly distinguishing it from sibling getters such as get_element_attributes or get_element_methods. It also adds useful specifics about content (descriptions and vanilla JS code snippets).

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 retrieving examples/snippets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its use from the element aspect (stories), but no direct guidance is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool lists elements, but does not disclose output format (e.g., array of names vs. objects), ordering, or any potential performance implications. This leaves the agent without important behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is directly front-loaded with 'List all available EOxElements custom elements.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool, but with no output schema or annotations, the description does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., element names, metadata) or whether pagination/limits apply. It is minimally acceptable for such a basic tool but lacks return-value context that would help an agent use the output.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). There are no parameter details to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all available EOxElements custom elements'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_element_* tools, which target specific aspects of an element rather than the full set.

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 implied from the phrasing 'List all available' — it should be used to enumerate elements. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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