Get element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is comprehensive, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions (e.g., not found), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a getter tool.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core meaning and is appropriately sized 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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings. The description leaves 'outline' undefined and does not clarify how this getter differs from get_scope, get_model, or get_validation. It is not fully self-contained for an agent to choose and invoke confidently.

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 only 50% (ref is described, kind is not). The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats the kind enum values ('node, link, or view') but does not explain the 'name#uuidprefix' format for ref or how to handle ambiguity. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource (node, link, or view) and states it returns the full element rather than an outline summary. It distinguishes from sibling getters by specifying element types, though it lacks an explicit verb phrase.

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 phrase 'including everything the outline summarises away' implies use when full detail is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is hinted rather than clearly defined.

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