List Surface Elements

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that results include raw xywh strings plus parsed {x,y,width,height} bounds, and that Y.Text fields are serialized to plain strings. This exceeds mere annotation repetition.

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 two sentences, well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the main purpose and scope; the second adds return format details and filter options. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail every return field, but it still mentions the key return shape (xywh strings + parsed bounds) and Y.Text serialization. The tool is a list operation with optional filters, and the description covers the essential context for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description lightly reinforces the 'type' and 'elementId' filters but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what schema descriptions already provide. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'shape/connector/text/group elements on the AFFiNE edgeless canvas surface', which differentiates it from sibling tools like add/update/delete_surface_element. It also mentions optional filters, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list surface elements with optional type or id filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling names like get_edgeless_canvas imply a distinction, and the description is sufficient for basic usage decisions.

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