sigma_list_data_model_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, response format). It simply restates the listing action without enriching transparency beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which prevents a perfect score, but it is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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 an output schema (though not shown) and one required parameter, but the description fails to explain what constitutes an 'element' in a data model. It does not mention the return structure, whether it includes metadata, or how it differs from listing columns or lineage. This is a significant gap for a tool with minimal annotations and no parameter descriptions.

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. The only parameter, data_model_id, is not explained beyond its name, and the description does not clarify what data model ID to use or how to obtain it. This is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'elements in a data model', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_data_model_columns or list_workbook_elements. However, it does not clarify what 'elements' means in this context, so it is clear but not fully detailed.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_list_data_model_columns or sigma_list_data_model_lineage. The description does not provide any context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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