Elements Get Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — the response includes the element's code — but says nothing about not-found behavior, whether code is raw/source form, or what fields accompany it.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and the locator strategy front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase (the five element types, "including its code", "by id or name") carries information an agent needs.

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 bears the burden of describing the return, and it only gestures at it with "including its code". For a read tool this simple the coverage is close to adequate, but the unstated id-vs-name fallback behavior and failure mode leave gaps.

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 only 33%, with just the name parameter documented inline. The description partly compensates by explaining that an element can be addressed by id or name and by enumerating the same type values as the enum, but it does not clarify precedence when both id and name are supplied or that id/name lookups differ in behavior.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Read") plus the exact resources it handles (template, TV, chunk, snippet, plugin) and the locator semantics ("by id or name"). The singular "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the plural listing sibling evo.elements.list, though it never contrasts itself explicitly with evo.content.get.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer that this is the single-element fetch versus evo.elements.list. The overlapping sibling evo.content.get is never mentioned, leaving a real routing ambiguity unresolved by the description.

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