Openings of host elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral distinction that the response payload changes shape based on details (GUIDs only vs full element details), which is not captured by 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the default-vs-full payload distinction placed second where it matters most for invocation decisions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does so (GUIDs vs full details). Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two parameters and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only the absence of sibling routing and host-GUID provenance keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes further by specifying the concrete effect of details=true (position, size, library part), giving the agent a clearer sense of payload cost/size than the schema's generic 'Include full element details'. It does not add format detail for the hosts array, which the schema already documents.

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 (Lists) and a precise resource set (windows, doors, skylights, Opening-tool openings) scoped to given host elements, with examples of host types. An agent can distinguish it from get_element_details or get_subelements without opening a schema.

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?

The description implies usage (retrieve openings for known host GUIDs) and explains the details toggle, but never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_subelements or get_element_details, nor any prerequisite for obtaining host GUIDs. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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