Get element details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data comes back, but says nothing about rate limits, the 1000-element cap, error behavior for invalid GUIDs, or partial-failure semantics — behavioral traits beyond the annotations are thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core behavior and then enumerates return categories. The parenthetical field lists are dense but each item is informative, so little 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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming common fields and type-specific detail categories. It stops short of covering the 1000-item cap and behavior for missing/invalid GUIDs, but is largely complete for a batch read tool.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the GUID format, array bounds, and the {guid:"..."} alternative. The description does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

It states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('elements') and enumerates the categories of data returned (common fields, geometry, materials, relations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read tools like get_element_3d_geometry, get_element_quantities, or get_element_relations; the breadth is implied rather than contrasted.

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?

'Works for all element types' gives a scope hint about applicability, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., use this for a general dump vs. get_element_quantities for counts). Usage is only implied.

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