Get element quantities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: unit conventions per quantity type, the caveat that 'Conditional' values follow the project's calculation rules, and the fact that totals and composite skins are included. It omits the 500-element cap and any I/O cost notes, keeping it out of the top band.

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, followed by units and then the examples, so the important information comes first. The element-type example run is long and semicolon-crammed; it earns most of its place by illustrating the return shape but could be trimmed.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing return content (quantity fields per type, composite skins, per-type totals) and units, and it points to find_elements for input. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps like pagination/cap behavior.

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%, and the schema already documents every parameter, its default and its effect, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of composite skins, per-type totals and exposed surfaces loosely maps to includeComposites/includeTotals/includeExposedSurfaces but adds no parameter detail the schema lacks.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Calculated quantities of elements... every field of the element type's quantity record') and the unit/examples make the numeric-measurement scope unmistakable, distinguishing it in practice from get_element_details, get_element_counts and the geometry tools. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

'Get GUIDs from find_elements first' gives a prerequisite and implies the workflow, which is genuinely useful. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_element_details, get_element_counts, or get_property_values, so 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.