list_design_elements

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose that this is a read-only operation, but it does not. It also doesn't mention any side effects, rate limits, or ordering behavior. The description is minimal.

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, concise and to the point. No unnecessary words, but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the return structure, pagination, or error handling. As is, it only states the basic action, leaving the agent to guess about behavior and results.

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 4 parameters with only 25% coverage (typeId has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond listing the parameters indirectly. It does not explain what limit/offset do or that projectId is required.

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 tool lists design elements (GDD documents) within a project, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_design_element_types or list_design_element_attachments. However, it could be more specific about the scope or output.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention pagination parameters (limit/offset) or that filtering by typeId is available. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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