Get element 3D geometry

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail: 2D elements produce an error item, parts are included for certain element types, and geometry is generated by Archicad. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or performance implications of large requests.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose and mode explanation. It is detailed but not excessively verbose, earning its place by explaining modes and behavior. Slightly long but efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested output structure), the description covers all essential aspects: modes, budgets, included data, edge cases (2D elements), and special element types. No output schema exists, so the description fully documents return values and behaviors, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of mode, budgets, and include flags, and by specifying that world boundingBox coordinates are in meters and z is absolute. This clarifies semantics of output fields that aren't in the input schema, adding value.

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 verb (Get) and resource (element 3D geometry) and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_element_2d_geometry and get_morph_geometry. The description further clarifies the two modes, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explains the two modes (summary vs mesh) and when each is appropriate: summary gives counts and bounding box, mesh gives detailed geometry. However, it does not explicitly compare to other geometry-fetching siblings or state when not to use it, leaving some inference needed.

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