Elements Get Element Query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it retrieves a generated SQL query, implying a read-only operation, but does not elaborate on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. With annotations present, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though more context (e.g., that the query is generated and may be expensive to compute) would help.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary content.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, with two required parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete—it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, nor does it provide usage context. The presence of annotations helps, but overall the definition is only minimally viable.

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%, meaning neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'workbook' and 'element' implicitly, but does not clarify the format, constraints, or relationships of workbook_id and element_id. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess the expected identifier formats.

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 (Get) and resource (generated SQL query for a specific element). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling elements_list_workbook_queries, which likely lists all queries rather than retrieving one for a specific element. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, leaving some potential for confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to queries (e.g., elements_list_workbook_queries, elements_list_workbook_elements), an agent would need to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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