kratos_list_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the list is parsed from C++ macros, which adds source transparency. But it does not mention behavior like no results handling, whether it requires a local Kratos installation, or that it is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies read-only). The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 with the main verb first, no redundant information. It efficiently explains the tool's purpose and both optional filters with examples, achieving high density of useful information.

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, two optional parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and all parameters. The only gap is not explicitly linking to sibling list tools, but this is minor since the resource type is clearly named.

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 input schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining 'application' as a filter by application name with an example, and 'name_filter' as a substring filter with a concrete example. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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: 'List element type names registered in Kratos', and clarifies the source ('parsed from KRATOS_REGISTER_ELEMENT macros in the C++ sources'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kratos_list_conditions and kratos_list_variables by focusing on elements and the macro source.

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 the tool: when you need a list of element types. It also explains the optional filters, giving concrete examples for application name and name substring. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or direct users to sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous among the sibling set.

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