Elements by classification

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description need not restate it. It does add value by disclosing the return shape inline, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior for an empty/unmatched classification item.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a compact inline output shape. No filler, though the item-format enumeration partially duplicates the schema.

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 compensates by specifying the response fields (item, total, countsByType, elements), and all four parameters are fully described in the schema. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing and edge-case behavior 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 item, system, includeTypes and includeSubItems with formats and defaults. The description restates the item formats (GUID, localized id, path) and the branch semantics of sub-items, which is mild reinforcement rather than new meaning — 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the elements classified with a given classification item, with an optional branch recursion. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_element_classifications (which likely runs the reverse direction) or get_classification_item_details.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The 'Browse with get_classification_tree' pointer exists only inside the schema's item parameter, not in the description, and nothing tells the agent how this differs from get_element_classifications or get_classification_availability.

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