ea_list_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate read-only behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the 'lightweight list' nature—only returning ID, type, name, alias, and stereotype—which tells the agent what to expect in the result. This is useful for setting expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('List elements within a package'), and the second sentence adds the key detail about the response shape. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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-only listing tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool returns (lightweight list fields) and the optional filter. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for the tool's core functionality, and the schema provides defaults for limit. Given the simplicity, the coverage is sufficient.

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 100%, meaning all three parameters (limit, packageId, objectType) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond saying 'optionally filtered by object type,' which duplicates the objectType schema description. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the description does not need to compensate; a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List elements within a package, optionally filtered by object type.' It names the resource (package), the action (list), and the optional filter. It differentiates from siblings like ea_get_element (which likely retrieves a single element) and ea_search (which is search-oriented) by emphasizing the 'lightweight list' scope with specific fields (ID, type, name, alias, stereotype).

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: this tool lists elements in a package and optionally filters by object type. It implicitly signals when to use it (when you need a lightweight list of elements in a known package) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use ea_search for complex queries' or 'use ea_get_element for a single element.' However, the sibling names and the lightweight clarification give enough context for an agent to decide.

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