getTextElements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it notes that text elements are stored per language outside the source, which explains why getObjectSource does not show them. This is useful supplementary information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a differentiating note. Every sentence serves a purpose—the first defines what the tool reads, the second explains why this tool exists (the storage location gap). No wasted words.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the essentials. It explains what the tool reads and why it is needed. It could mention that results are language-dependent (since text elements are per language) or possible empty returns, but these are minor given the annotations cover safety.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter (url, category, objectName, objectType) has a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema: it merely references the three category values in prose without adding syntax or deeper semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('text elements of a program, class or function group'), then enumerates the three kinds of text elements. It also explicitly contrasts with getObjectSource ('getObjectSource never shows them'), which differentiates it from a close sibling without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool by explaining that text elements are stored per language outside the source and are not visible via getObjectSource. It implicitly says 'use this when you need those elements' but stops short of explicitly listing alternate read tools or stating when not to use it.

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