Get connected elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description isn't needed for that. The description adds real behavioral value by specifying the exact return shape, including the nested connected map keyed by element type and the optional owner/solidOperations/trims fields — valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then optional inclusions, then output shape, then sibling routing — a logical order. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the parenthetical examples are illustrative rather than 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 read-only query tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional flags, the return structure, and the sibling boundary cases. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: it explains what 'trims' means (elements trimmed to roofs/shells) and that solid operations cover both 'operators cutting this element / targets it cuts', clarifying the includeSolidOperations flag. It slightly exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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 query verb ('get connected elements') and defines the resource precisely as elements attached to or hosted by each given element, enumerating concrete cases (windows/doors of a wall, skylights of a roof/shell, openings cut into slabs/beams). It explicitly routes related-but-different queries to siblings get_element_relations and get_subelements, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-not/alternative guidance: 'For zone boundaries and wall joins use get_element_relations; for curtain wall/stair/railing parts use get_subelements.' The optional-inclusion conditions (solid operations, trims) are also stated, so the agent knows when to flip those flags.

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