get_element_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly declare read-only status, error handling for missing GUIDs, or any potential side effects. It adds some useful context (property addressing syntax, optional classifications) but lacks explicit safety or failure behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It packs the core purpose, key usage detail (property address format), and optional behavior (classifications) with zero redundancy or filler. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers the primary purpose, clarifies property syntax, and notes optionality. However, it omits any mention of the 'port' parameter and does not address edge cases like empty GUID lists or invalid GUIDs. For a read-oriented tool with a modest parameter count, it is mostly complete but has a few gaps.

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 does explain the 'properties' parameter by specifying the addressing format ('Group/Name') and clarifies that 'include_classifications' is optional. However, it says nothing about the 'port' parameter, which remains ambiguous. Since two of the three non-obvious parameters are at least partially explained, it earns a middle score.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('element data') with clear scope: 'given element GUIDs'. It explicitly mentions the types of data returned (type, layer, properties, classifications) and includes a critical usage detail (address user properties as 'Group/Name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_elements or get_project_info.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you have element GUIDs and need to read their data. It implies that this is the direct-by-GUID accessor, contrasting with filtering tools like query_elements or list_instances, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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