get_element

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict it. It adds detailed behavioral context, such as the return format for both single and batch modes, the concept of a 'sparse skeleton node', and backward compatibility. Minor omissions (e.g., error handling) are acceptable given read-only nature.

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 paragraph without bullet points, but it is information-dense and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured for readability, but overall concise and front-loaded.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the response shape for both modes and the purpose of the skeleton node. It covers key aspects like batch mode and backward compatibility. Some details (e.g., potential errors) are missing, but it is sufficient for a read operation.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it explains the advantage of 'types' over 'type', provides example values, and clarifies the backward-compatibility behavior. This substantially aids the agent in correct invocation.

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 returns detailed usage for one or many element types, distinguishing between single and batch mode. It specifies the contents: summary, when to use, specials fields, sparse skeleton node, and filled example. This provides a specific verb+resource definition.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the 'types' parameter over 'type' ('Prefer `types` when fetching more than one') and includes an example. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear for batch vs single usage.

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