element_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It surfaces key constraints: only custom components are supported, and an optional path can be specified. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior for non-custom elements, or whether this is strictly a read operation, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The key action and constraint are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and primary constraint but omits return-value format and potential error cases. Given the tool's narrow scope, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 50%: only 'path' is described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and 'element_id' remains unexplained in both schema and description. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify the role of element_id.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: '获取自定义组件 data' (get custom component data). It clearly identifies the target and adds the scope constraint '仅自定义组件可用' (only custom components), which distinguishes it from sibling getters like element_text or element_property.

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 usage for retrieving custom component data but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The '仅自定义组件可用' constraint provides some guidance, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are present.

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