get_element_placement

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 discloses what is returned (insertion point and orientation axes as unit vectors) and that the placement is world-space. It does not mention side effects or errors, but as a getter this is acceptable and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by a concise use-case rationale. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, output (insertion point and orientation), and intended use cases. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or error behavior, but for this level of complexity the description is mostly complete.

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 for parameter explanations. It does not explain model_id or global_id beyond the schema's property names, and instead refers only to 'an element'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds no additional meaning or context on how to obtain these identifiers.

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 function: 'Get the world-space placement of an element' and explicitly lists the returned data ('insertion point (XYZ) and orientation axes (X/Y/Z unit vectors)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_element_local_bbox or get_representation by specifying world-space and orientation outputs.

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 a clear use-case context: 'Useful for position, rotation, and aim direction of elements like luminaires.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, giving it a clear context without exclusions.

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