query_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the AND-combination behaviorched returns GUIDs and counts, and importantly notes the coverage difference with/without the Tapir add-on, including the caveat that zero counts aren't proof of absence. This is useful behavioral insight 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?

Two concise sentences that pack essential information: what the tool does, its filters, return values, and a critical caveat about coverage. No fluff.

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 query tool with 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: AND-combination of filters, return type (GUIDs and counts), and the important coverage caveat. It doesn't explain each parameter's semantics or error cases, but given the self-explanatory names and existing output schema, it's adequately complete for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by listing the filter names and explicitly stating they are AND-combined. It also clarifies the selection_only parameter's role. However, it doesn't elaborate on the meaning of each parameter (e.g., layer vs. story), though the names are self-explanatory. Overall, it adds meaning beyond 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 tool queries elements with specific AND-combined filters (element_type, layer, story, classification_system, selection_only) and returns GUIDs and counts. It also mentions the 'coverage' field, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate or get data for specific elements.

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 you need to query elements with filtersaine, and the coverage caveat provides context for interpreting results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, relying on the user to infer from the tool list.

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