get_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and discloses important output behavior: output is 'compact and truncated' and can be filtered via include. It could also state no-side-effects explicitly, but the read-only framing is sufficient for this tool type.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then the enumerated return categories, then parameter filtering guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context: what is returned, how scope works, and how to filter results. The only notable omissions are explicit include_empty semantics and truncation specifics, but these are minor given the output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the scope parameter ('current screen... open dialog when scope='auto'/'dialog'') and fully enumerates valid include values. The include_empty parameter is not described, but its name and default make its intent reasonably clear, so this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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, non-tautological action: 'List the interactive elements of the current screen (or of the open dialog...)' and enumerates the exact element categories (fields, buttons, tabs, rows, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like click_button, set_field, or open_menu.

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?

It provides clear context for when the tool applies: reading the current screen or the open dialog via scope='auto'/'dialog'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list-oriented purpose is clear against the action-oriented sibling tools.

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