get_element_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Return' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether the hierarchy is recursive, includes inherited properties, or if any permissions are required. There is no mention of side effects or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the content (parts, ports, properties). There is no waste or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned and the scope (under an element). The output schema covers return structure, so no need to explain that. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., whether it works on all element types) or preconditions. With the output schema present, the description is adequate for most use cases.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameter. It says 'under an element', which clearly indicates that element_id is the root element whose hierarchy is requested. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. For a single parameter, this is adequate, though it could specify what types of elements are valid (e.g., blocks, parts, ports).

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 clear verb and resource: 'Return the structural hierarchy under an element' and specifies the composition as 'parts, ports, properties'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element (which returns the element itself), get_ports (only ports), and walk_tree (full tree traversal). An agent can confidently select this tool for retrieving hierarchical structure without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the structural hierarchy under an element. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., list_children, walk_tree, get_relationships), explicit guidance would be beneficial, but the implied usage is reasonably clear for a simple read operation.

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