Elements List Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add two non-obvious facts: results are limited to elements the acting user may edit, and code payloads are omitted from the listing. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or how many items come back.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource enumeration and the permission qualifier both earn their place. The trailing parenthetical is compact but slightly buried as a scoping caveat to the return payload.

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 list tool with five parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition leaves notable unknowns: result shape (what identifies each element), total counts, ordering, and what the category filter refers to. It is adequate to select the tool but thin on what an agent should expect back.

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 only 40%: limit and search are documented in the schema, while offset and category carry no explanation anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that gap. The definition adds no parameter meaning of its own beyond clarifying that lists exclude code, which concerns output rather than inputs.

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 ("List") plus an enumerated set of resources (templates, TVs, chunks, snippets, plugins) and scopes it to elements "the acting user may edit." The "(without code)" aside usefully separates it from the singular evo.elements.get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "the acting user may edit" signals a permission-filtered browse operation, and "List" vs. the singular get sibling implies when to pick this one. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of paging through results, and no pointer to a search-oriented alternative.

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