get_element_containment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation and specifies the output chain, but does not disclose error behavior, whether the element itself is included, or the exact return format. It adds some transparency by naming the hierarchical levels, but leaves room for interpretation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful parenthetical hierarchy. There is zero wasted wording; it earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list vs. nested object), the order of the chain, error handling, or behavior when the element is missing. For a tool with only two parameters and no other documentation, this is a significant gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'model_id' and 'global_id'. While their names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description only mentions 'an element' without linking it to 'global_id' or specifying the model context. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema parameter names.

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 tool's function: 'Get the spatial containment chain for an element' and even outlines the hierarchy (Space > Storey > Building > Site). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_spatial_structure' or 'get_element_by_id' by detailing the exact output scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—whenever you need an element's containment hierarchy. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and unambiguous, so the usage context is clear.

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