Elements List Workbook Page Elements

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: it transparently paginates through every Sigma page and returns entries aggregated across pages, with nextPage null and hasMore false. That tells an agent it never needs to page manually — valuable and non-obvious.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the pagination contract. The parenthetical about which keys come from Sigma is dense but carries real information; it is somewhat redundant against the output schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what it does and how pagination behaves. The remaining gap is operational: no pointer to how page_id is discovered and no note on entry ordering.

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 0% for the two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It establishes the workbook/page relationship, but neither workbook_id nor page_id is explained (format, source, or how to discover a page_id). The parameter names are largely self-evident, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than deficient.

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 and resource with a clear scope qualifier: list elements on a specific page of a workbook. That distinguishes it implicitly from elements_list_workbook_elements (whole workbook), but it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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 scoping phrase 'on a specific page of a workbook' implies when this tool is the right choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the workbook-wide alternative, and no note on how to obtain a page_id (e.g. via workbooks_list_workbook_pages).

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