get_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does describe behavioral output (live skeleton node, ATTRIBUTES reference) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or any other side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The 'get' verb implies safety, but the description leaves those aspects implicit.

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 two sentences with dense, structured information. It front-loads the main action and follows with a clear usage tip. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the response will contain (category, container flag, summary, ATTRIBUTES reference, skeleton node) and provides usage context. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it 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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter 'type' with examples. The tool description simply repeats 'element type' without adding any additional semantic context (e.g., valid values, case sensitivity, or relationship to other tools), so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the full detail of an element type, enumerating the specific contents (category, container flag, summary, ATTRIBUTES reference, live skeleton node). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_element or get_global_source_element by focusing on 'element type' as a resource.

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 provides a clear usage directive: 'Read this before authoring/editing an element so you set the right keys.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as list_elements for a catalog overview or get_page_element for page-instance details.

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