get_element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful context that it operates on 'specific' elements and associations within the 'current diagram', which is not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing IDs or error conditions; the output schema likely covers return format.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It states the action, scope, and resource type efficiently, 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?

The description covers the essential scope ('current diagram', 'element or association') and safety is fully provided by annotations. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. It omits potential error behavior for nonexistent IDs, but that is a minor gap for such a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for elementId ('ID of the element'), and the description ('Get details of a specific element or association') implies it is the target identifier. No additional semantic detail is added beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific element or association', and scopes it to 'the current diagram'. It distinguishes from list_elements (which lists) and update_element (which updates) by emphasizing specificity, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as list_elements for enumeration or update_element for modification. The word 'specific' implies single-element retrieval, but no explicit selection criteria or alternative routing is given.

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