get_element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds the useful detail that only *active* elements are returned, implying soft-deleted ones are excluded, but it does not say what happens when the ID is missing or inactive.

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 filler. It is efficient but bordered on under-specified, which is a content issue rather than a wording one.

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 shape needs no explanation, and a one-parameter lookup is simple. Still, the not-found and inactive-element behavior is left unstated, which is the one thing an agent would want to know before calling.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it only restates that the parameter is an ID. The name element_id and the non-blank string pattern make the intent largely self-evident, so the gap is mild.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Return one active element by ID.' This clearly separates it from get_scene (whole scene), find_elements (search), and get_resource, even though no sibling is named explicitly. The 'active' qualifier hints at scope beyond a bare fetch.

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 only implied by 'by ID': you must already hold an element_id. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over find_elements or get_scene, and no mention of what to do when the ID is unknown.

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