Get element docs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes a read-only retrieval of documentation without any destructive side effects. Adds detail on content (required fields, constraints, gotchas, example), though doesn't mention auth or rate limits—acceptable for a simple get tool.

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?

A single sentence with a following list of types. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, its single parameter, and what to expect in the response. Sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'element' parameter listing examples. The tool description adds value by specifying case-insensitivity and listing all valid types, which is not present in the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'concise docs for one element type', listing the supported types and what the docs include (required fields, constraints, gotchas, example). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_supported_elements' by focusing on documentation for a specific type.

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 implies usage when needing docs for a specific element type, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'list_supported_elements' for browsing types.

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