list_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the confirmation gate (calling without confirmed returns a prompt instead of data), the confidentiality risk of map contents, and the staleness behavior that memory shouldn't be trusted. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Return values and the raw-checked caveat are front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information. It is dense but never padded, though the single long block could be broken up for faster scanning.

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 adequately describes the return shape (elements, parent-child structure, checked state) plus the gating and staleness behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the operational semantics of confirmed (must ask the user first, never set true before confirming) and the meaning of mapId's source. This adds real meaning over the field descriptions rather than restating them.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: returns all elements in a given map along with parent-child relationships and checked state. It further sharpens the deliverable by clarifying that checked is the raw stored value, not an inherited-completion interpretation, so an agent knows exactly what it gets versus related read tools like list_maps.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: obtain the user's own consent before reading an unfamiliar map, and re-call this tool (never rely on memory) whenever the user asks about progress or state because app-side edits are not reflected until invoked. It also states the exact invocation protocol (call without confirmed to get a prompt, then re-call with confirmed: true).

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