ea_get_element

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only annotation by exposing two non-obvious behaviors: the multiplicity inference caveat (and the _meta.multiplicityIsUniform flag) and the truncation semantics (attributesTruncated/operationsTruncated and totals). These are critical for correct interpretation and are not derivable from annotations or schema.

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: the first provides the main purpose (front-loaded), the second packs essential warnings. While long, every clause carries important operational guidance (multiplicity, truncation counts). It is structured efficiently, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description successfully conveys the response scope (Note, attributes, operations, diagrams, constraints) and the critical meta fields. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication, but for a read-only fetch tool these are less critical. The coverage is strong enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter elementId is fully described in the schema as 'The Object_ID of the element to retrieve.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it doesn't extend beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get full details of an Enterprise Architect element by its ID') and enumerates the exact data returned (Note, attributes, operations, diagrams, constraints). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ea_list_elements or ea_search, even without naming them.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need full element details by ID—but it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings or states when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the choice somewhat to inference.

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