zero_get_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly labels the tool as a read operation ('прочитать') with no hint of destructive behavior. While it doesn't disclose exact return format or edge cases, it's adequate for a read-only tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage advice. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a read tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the tool's purpose and usage context. However, it could clarify that either recId or match is needed alongside pageid, but the schema's required field (pageid) makes this implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on the 'match' or 'recId' relationship, but the schema already covers this.

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 it reads a Zero Block model and lists elements with fields (type, text, links, geometry, all fields). The verb 'прочитать' and resource 'Zero Block' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling write tools (zero_update_element, etc.).

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?

Explicitly says 'Вызывайте перед правками' (Call before edits), providing clear context for when to use. Does not enumerate when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for a read tool among many write siblings.

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