get_quantities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format and does not mention error conditions, permissions, side effects, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the return format. There is no wasted text.

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?

This is a simple getter with two parameters and no output schema. The description provides the return structure, which is helpful, but it lacks context on when to use this vs. sibling tools, what constitutes a valid element, or error handling. It is minimally sufficient but has gaps given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for model_id or global_id, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'an element' but does not explain that global_id identifies the element or what model_id refers to. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of any semantic elaboration keeps this score low.

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 all quantity sets for an element' with a specific return format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_property_sets or get_material by focusing on quantities as the resource.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the tool name and description imply usage when an agent needs quantity data for an element, which is a reasonable contextual signal. The lack of exclusions or alternatives keeps it at an implied level rather than clear guidance.

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