read_elements

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. 'Full, unabridged' usefully signals it returns complete element data rather than a summary, but it says nothing about the default limit of 100, truncation/pagination behavior, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the distinguishing capability is front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing advice.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers output nature ('full, unabridged') and tool selection, but leaves limit/truncation semantics and multi-filter interaction unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%, so ids/type/limit/scene/region/contains are largely self-documented in the schema. The description only alludes to filtering generically ('filtered down to the ones you need') and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the 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 tells the agent it returns full, unabridged elements narrowed by filters, and it explicitly names the sibling it supersedes (read_scene). The verb is implicit in the tool name rather than stated, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for choosing this over read_scene: 'when editing a few things in a busy scene.' That is real routing guidance, though it doesn't cover when read_scene is preferable (e.g., whole-scene inspection) or mention describe_scene as another alternative.

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