tm1_list_dimension_elements

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' signals a read-only retrieval operation, and 'capped' discloses a limiting behavior, which adds useful context. It does not explain the default cap, whether the limit parameter is required, or what the returned element data looks like.

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 no redundant schema text or filler; every word earns its place. It is scannable and appropriately minimal, though its brevity contributes to the completeness gaps seen in other dimensions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema-description coverage, the description needs to supply substantially more context than it does. It omits return format, default limit behavior, the role of the optional hierarchyName parameter, and any error or permission considerations, leaving the agent poorly equipped to call this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to the parameters: 'dimension hierarchy' hints at dimensionName and hierarchyName, while 'capped' hints at limit. It leaves requiredness, types, defaults, and the exact cap behavior unspecified, which is not enough for an agent invoking this tool with confidence.

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 identifies a specific operation—listing elements—and names the resource ('dimension hierarchy'), which is precise and matches the tool name. It differentiates by resource type from siblings like tm1_list_dimensions and tm1_list_hierarchies, though it does not explicitly call out those siblings.

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 phrase 'elements of a dimension hierarchy' implies this tool is for retrieving dimension elements, and the sibling list tools suggest the broader category. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as tm1_list_subsets or tm1_get_cube_dimensions, and no exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given.

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