get_element

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the return contract — a summary, key `specials` fields, a sparse skeleton node whose boilerplate the server fills, and a filled example for common types. With no output schema, that disclosed behavior is valuable, though some terms (`specials`, "skeleton node") stay undefined.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and the remaining clauses each carry distinct information (what is returned, and the two return shapes). It is a single dense sentence with domain jargon but no filler or repetition, so nothing is wasted even if it reads densely.

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?

With no output schema and no required parameters, the description carries the load of describing return values, and it does so for both call shapes. Remaining gaps are minor — the meaning of `specials`, error behavior, and how the skeleton is intended to be reused are not clarified.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it states that `types` returns { elements: { [type]: details } } while `type` returns a single doc, which is not expressed anywhere in the input schema. It also clarifies the mutual purpose of the two params (one type vs several in one call).

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns usage details for one element type") and even enumerates what those details contain (summary, specials, skeleton, example). It implicitly separates itself from list_elements by being a per-type detail lookup, but never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the `types` array versus the single `type` string (several types in one call vs one type), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool at all compared to siblings like list_elements or get_page_schema, so a tool-selection context is only implied.

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