describe_element

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool returns a description, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-mutating, does not mention error behavior for invalid element_id, or any access requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the primary action. It has no wasted words and is appropriately terse for a simple getter, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it lacks guidance on when to use the tool and any behavioral caveats. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in usage context.

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 0% and the description does not mention the element_id parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which only provides the name and type. For a tool with a single parameter, the description should at least hint at what the ID refers to or any constraints.

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 (return) and the resource (rich description of an element) and specifies the content (stereotypes and tagged values). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_element or get_element_structure by emphasizing the 'rich' nature and specific fields, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other getter tools such as get_element or list_applied_stereotypes. There is no context about when this richer description is needed, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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