elements_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds useful behavioral context: include_values is off by default because values clutter, and recommends element_get for detailed data. No contradictions.

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 concise: one sentence for fields, one for filters, one for include_values caveat, and ends with 'Read-only'. No redundancy or unnecessary text.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description lists the fields returned. For a list tool, this is adequate. It references element_get for full shape. Could mention pagination, but not essential given simplicity.

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 high at 90%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the include_values default and clutter concern, and describing the filters parameter as an escape hatch with pattern constraints.

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 'list' with a clear resource 'elements', lists the returned fields, and distinguishes from element_get by recommending it for full shape. Sibling tools are also differentiated by context.

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 states when to use include_values (rarely) and advises using element_get for full shape. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance compared to other list tools like articles_list, but the context implies this is for elements under a site.

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