list_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool does not modify the archive, does not canonicalize element order, and reports units in centimetres and degrees plus the coordinate system. This goes well beyond a basic 'list elements' statement.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, units, coordinate system, side-effect guarantees, and a concrete example. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple listing tool with two parameters and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers side effects, units, coordinate semantics, and usage via example. The main missing piece is the set of valid kind values, but the agent can infer a reasonable call from the example.

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 for the sparse schema. The example clarifies that project_path is a file path and kinds is a filter list such as ['walls','rooms'], but it does not enumerate the possible kinds values or explain what happens when kinds is omitted. It adds partial meaning but leaves gaps.

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 ('List') and resource ('editable elements in a .sh3d project'), making the purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling mutation/validation tools, and the example reinforces the exact action.

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 clear context: this is the read-only inspection tool for a project's elements, explicitly noting it does not modify the archive. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tools are all sufficiently different in action that the usage context is clear.

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