Get GDL parameters of elements

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact return shape per element, unit conventions (m and degrees), the performance tradeoff of includeValueLists ('slower'), and the rule that hidden parameters are skipped unless includeHidden or named explicitly. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the return structure before covering units, filtering, and hidden behavior; the sentences are dense but each contributes unique information. Slightly compact but no wasted words.

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 completely: it specifies the per-element object shape, the parameters array fields, unit conventions, and the special behavior of hidden parameters and value lists. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: names filters by exact variable name (case-insensitive), search matches substrings of name or localized description, includeValueLists adds allowed values/ranges and locked flags from the parameter script, and hidden parameters are skipped unless includeHidden or named explicitly. This meaningfully supplements the 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 'Returns' and a precise resource 'GDL parameters of placed library-part based elements', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling set_gdl_parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other getters like get_element_details or get_library_part_details, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_element_details or set_gdl_parameters. It describes filtering options but never states the context or conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over its siblings.

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