get_element_connectivity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Query' and 'return connected user node IDs' imply a non-mutating read and describe the return payload, which is useful. However, it says nothing about behavior on an invalid element ID, the node-ID domain of results, or any limits, so significant behavioral ground is uncovered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: input scope first, return value second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 simple read tool with 4 params, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core question (what comes back) but omits half the parameters and any error/edge-case behavior. Adequate to invoke, but not complete for a tool whose schema documentation is entirely absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that element_id is a 'user' element ID (distinct from internal IDs) and that element_type covers shell/solid/beam, which the schema leaves bare with only a 'shell' default. It says nothing about the 'model' or 'file_type' parameters, so 2 of 4 parameters remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Query') and a concrete resource ('one shell/solid/beam') scoped by 'a user element ID', and it also names the return ('connected user node IDs'). An agent can distinguish it from list_nodes/list_parts, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: 'using a user element ID' tells the agent the prerequisite input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., list_nodes) to route between. The agent must infer that this is the connectivity counterpart to the listing tools.

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