elements_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description does add value beyond that: it discloses that results are 'bounded' and that arbitrary XML attributes are deliberately not exposed, and it constrains the selector to 'one safe CSS compound selector'. However, it omits pagination behavior, revision semantics, and the effect of the inclusion flags, so it only partially carries the behavioral burden.

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 front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though the packing of four filter modes and two safety constraints into one clause makes it slightly hard to parse and leaves room for a short second sentence on usage.

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 11-parameter read tool, the description is thin: it lacks guidance on pagination, the meaning of expectedRevision and the inclusion flags, and any hint of usage context. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but it does not excuse the missing parameter and selection guidance.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It touches ids, kinds ('type'), layerId ('layer'), and selector, but says nothing about path, workspaceId, limit/offset pagination, includeBounds, includeComputedStyle, or the optimistic-concurrency expectedRevision. More than half the parameters remain undocumented in either location.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (bounded SVG element summaries) plus the four filter dimensions (IDs, type, layer, selector). It clearly reads as the read/query counterpart to siblings like elements_create, elements_update, and elements_delete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from document_inspect, but the element-scoped query purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative. Usage is only loosely implied by the mention of filter dimensions. An agent is left to infer that this is the discovery step before mutating elements with the elements_* siblings.

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