elements_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are summarized rather than full elements, bounded (consistent with limit/offset), and deliberately stripped of arbitrary XML attributes. This clarifies what an agent should expect in the return payload beyond the raw schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource before stating filtering dimensions and the key output limitation. Every clause earns its place; there is no 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 a read-only list operation, the description covers what is returned, the filtering dimensions, and a key exclusion (arbitrary XML attributes); the output schema covers return details. It falls short only in not explicitly routing the agent toward or away from sibling query/export tools, though the purpose is mostly self-evident.

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 description maps the main filter parameters to concepts: IDs, type (kinds), and Inkscape layer (layerId). But with 0% schema description coverage, it does not clarify path/workspaceId context or the pagination parameters (limit/offset), leaving the agent to infer those from the schema names alone.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('SVG element summaries'), plus the three filtering dimensions (IDs, type, Inkscape layer). The qualifier 'without exposing arbitrary XML attributes' distinguishes this from raw SVG/XML inspection and from sibling write tools like elements_update or elements_delete.

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 read-only verb 'Lists' and readOnlyHint imply this is for retrieval rather than mutation, and sibling names make the contrast obvious. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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