Get element classifications

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

Annotations already declare this a safe idempotent read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value by disclosing the per-element error shape and that a null item means unclassified, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact inline return shape and the default. The embedded JSON skeleton is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return contract (per-element classifications, error variant, unclassified null). For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only query-time prerequisites are absent.

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 schema already documents both `systems` (names or GUIDs, default all) and `elements` (GUID string or {guid}). The description's 'Default: all systems of the project' merely restates the schema default, adding no new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns how elements are classified') and a clearly bounded resource, which is enough to separate it from mutation siblings like set_element_classifications and aggregation siblings like get_elements_by_classification. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only conditional guidance is 'Default: all systems of the project,' which is a parameter default rather than a usage rule. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to get_elements_by_classification, get_classification_tree, or get_classification_item_details.

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