Get element relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: relations are computed by Archicad per element type, unsupported types produce an error item rather than failing, and the shape of returned pieces varies by type. It stops short of stating whether computation is expensive or how large result sets behave.

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?

It is front-loaded and every clause concerns real return data, but it is delivered as a single unscannable block that mixes five element types with semicolon-separated fragments. A bullet or line-per-type structure would make it far easier for an agent to match its case without re-reading the whole paragraph.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly per element type (zone, wall, beam, opening, roof/shell). Its gaps are the missing comparison to sibling relation tools and the absence of any note on result size for up to 200 elements.

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% across both parameters, so the schema already documents 'elements' and 'includePolygons' fully. The description alludes to polygon/niche data in the return but does not add syntax, format, or effect details for either parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Topological relations computed by Archicad') and then enumerates precisely what relations are returned for each element type, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It never explicitly contrasts itself with near-siblings like get_connected_elements or get_element_edit_relations, so an agent must infer the boundary from the per-type detail.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative; usage is only implied by the per-element-type breakdown. The one boundary it does draw is negative — 'Other types return an error item' — which usefully signals an unsupported-input case but is not routing guidance.

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