Get element components

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies; the description still adds the default field set returned per component, the unit conventions (m, m³, m²), and per-element error objects in the result. It does not mention pagination or limits (the schema's maxItems of 500/50 is left to the schema), so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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-loads the purpose, then defaults, then the alternative tool. The inline output-shape literal is dense but functional. Slightly information-heavy for a two-parameter tool, though every sentence carries real content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the return structure and the default value set, including per-element error entries. Combined with the routing to the companion tool, an agent has everything needed to call this 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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies what the default summary returns, that [] yields component ids only, and names concrete property identifiers ('General_ElementID', 'Component_Thickness', 'BuildingMaterial_Name') plus a pointer to get_property_ids_by_name for discovery.

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 and resource ('Lists the components of elements') and immediately defines what a component is in Archicad terms (composite skins, profile parts, basic structures), which is domain knowledge an agent cannot infer from the name. It also names the sibling it is not (get_component_property_values) for the follow-up case.

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 behavioral branches for the optional parameter ('Pass properties to read other values instead, or [] for ids only') and routes the agent to get_component_property_values when more properties of specific components are needed. Nothing about when to choose this tool versus the alternative is left to inference.

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