GetClassificationsOfElements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation on a closed dataset. The description adds the behavioral note that it works for subelements of hierarchical elements, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or error behavior.

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 concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical '(Tapir, Classification Commands)' is arguably noise, but overall it is efficient and not bloated.

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 tool with two required nested-object parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value details, and usage context, forcing the agent to rely entirely on the schema and annotations for invocation details.

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 explain the two required parameters (elements, classificationSystemIds) or their formats. The bare mention of 'elements' and 'classification systems' is vague and does not compensate for the undocumented schema, leaving the agent to infer structure from the JSON schema alone.

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 and resource: 'Returns the classification of the given elements in the given classification systems.' It is clear what the tool does, though the parenthetical '(Tapir, Classification Commands)' is cryptic filler and doesn't help differentiate from siblings like SetClassificationsOfElements.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned. The phrase 'It works for subelements of hierarchal elements also' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over sibling tools like GetPropertyValuesOfElements or archicad_classification_items.

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