get_element_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup 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 tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns, how errors are handled, or authentication requirements. For a tool in a system with many siblings performing related operations, more context about output format and differentiation is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name and type with enum). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'name' identifies the element and 'type' categorizes it. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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' and resource 'detailed information about a specific element', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_elements' (which lists multiple) and 'get_element_relationships' (which focuses on connections). However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes or differentiate from 'get_active_elements' beyond the 'specific' qualifier.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'get_element_details' over 'list_elements' (for summaries vs details), 'get_element_relationships' (for connections vs intrinsic details), or 'search_all' (for finding elements by criteria). No context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical workflows is provided.

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