List elements

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact return envelope ({total, offset, returned, hasMore, countsByType, elements}), the fact that countsByType is always included, and the Connector-independence note. It stops short of discussing performance/pagination limits beyond includeTypes=false being 'fastest for huge projects'.

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, each front-loaded with the highest-value information (what it lists, then the return shape, then sibling routing). No filler or repetition of 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the exact return structure. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 the coupling between onlyEditable and selectedOnly and clarifies that omitting types includes non-enumerated types reported as 'Unknown'. This is meaningful semantic context layered on top of the already-complete 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 (Lists) and resource (element GUIDs) with explicit scope (whole project, all stories), and names the mechanism (official JSON API). It also names three sibling tools and what each is for, so an agent can distinguish it from find_elements, get_element_details, and get_bounding_boxes without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: attribute/geometry filters (story, layer, region, ID) belong to find_elements, details to get_element_details, extents to get_bounding_boxes. It also notes the tool works without the Claude Connector add-on, which is a real selection condition.

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