List elements in a workspace

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds modest context by enumerating element types, but does not disclose details like whether all elements are returned by default or how filtering behaves.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. The examples in the parenthetical add useful context without bloating the definition.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention that element identifiers are returned, but the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity keep this from being a significant gap.

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 schema fully explains doc, ws, and type. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('elements/tabs'), and a container ('workspace'), and names the kinds of elements returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like onshape_list_documents or onshape_get_features.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_get_features, onshape_get_workspaces, or onshape_find_part_studios. The usage context is only implicit in the title and description.

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