get_report_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Lists" implies a non-mutating read, but nothing is said about authentication/session requirements, permissions on the referenced document, pagination, or whether the list is truncated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves the behavioral profile largely undisclosed.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the scope in a clarifying parenthetical. No filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a function of the information that is missing rather than of tight editing.

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 existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the tool's operation is simple, so a one-liner is close to sufficient. However, the undisclosed relationship between the two required IDs and the lack of differentiation from get_report_element_data leave an agent with real ambiguity about correct invocation.

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 neither webi_doc_id nor report_id is documented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter, leaving the containment relationship between document and report, and the expected ID formats, completely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("visual and data elements (tables, charts, sections)") with the scoping detail "inside a report sheet/tab". A parenthetical enumeration makes the scope concrete. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the close sibling get_report_element_data, which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_reports or get_report_element_data. The context of use is only weakly implied by the phrase "inside a report sheet/tab". Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus pulling element data directly.

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