Elements related to zones

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile. The description adds the output shape and error handling per zone ('{zone, error}'), which is useful context. It does not cover pagination or behavior with large zone lists (maxItems 1000), so it is solid but not rich beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then output format, then prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only query tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete: it explains purpose, output shape, prerequisites, and constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema documents zones, groupByType, and elementTypes. The description restates the grouping behavior and output shape, adding mild value. It does not add format details beyond the schema, so 4 reflects appropriate compensation for a well-documented schema.

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: 'For each zone (room), returns the elements that bound or belong to it (walls, columns, doors, windows, slabs, objects...)'. This is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_element_relations or get_connected_elements.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain valid input: 'Get zone GUIDs with list_elements {types: ['Zone']}.' and enforces the constraint 'The passed GUIDs must be zones.' This is exactly the guidance needed to use the tool correctly.

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