elements_list

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds behavioral context about include_values defaulting to false to avoid clutter, and references element_get for full shape. 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, front-loaded with the core action and fields, then lists filters, and ends with a note about include_values. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the fields returned and that include_values adds the values hash. It also references element_get for full shape. It does not explain pagination or ordering, but for a list tool with many filters, it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of include_values (why default false) and describing the 'filters' escape hatch. It does not repeat all schema descriptions but adds context beyond 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists elements with specified fields and optional filters, and distinguishes itself from element_get by noting that include_values is off by default and suggesting use of element_get for full shape. The verb 'list' and resource 'elements' are explicit.

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 explicit guidance: it says 'Read-only', advises when to use include_values (true for listing with values, false otherwise), and recommends element_get for full per-element shape. It implicitly tells when not to use this tool (when you need full element data).

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