ea_get_diagram_elements

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing non-obvious return behavior: connectors include feature-link resolution (which attribute/operation each end attaches to) and the connector list is the union of explicit t_diagramlinks rows plus implied connectors. This is genuinely useful subtle behavior that annotations alone do not convey. Major visible side effects are covered by the read-only annotation, so no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with minimal waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the connector behavior detail (feature-link resolution, union of explicit/implied) earns its place as valuable non-obvious information. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thorough: it enumerates returned components and explains the connector composition nuance an agent would otherwise not know. No critical calling information appears missing for this complexity level.

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 100% — the single diagramId parameter is already documented as 'The Diagram_ID to get elements for.' The description's mention of 'specific diagram' adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is an adequate 3; the description does not introduce new parameter-level guidance.

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+resource scope: 'Get all elements and connectors placed on a specific diagram.' It names the exact returned pieces (diagram, elements, connectors) and the diagram-scoping distinguishes it from siblings like ea_list_elements (unscoped listing) and ea_get_connectors (connectors without diagram context) without needing to open their schemas.

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 context is implied through the diagram scoping ('placed on a specific diagram'), which signals this is the tool for diagram-scoped retrieval rather than global element listing. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the routing from siblings' names.

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