list_elements

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds meaningful return-shape context beyond that annotation: results are grouped by category, each entry has a one-line summary, and each indicates whether it is a container. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not cover auth needs, pagination, or result limits.

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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action and resource. Every clause adds concrete detail about the returned data.

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 parameters, the description carries most of the burden for explaining what is returned, and it does so by describing grouping, summaries, and container status. It could still mention pagination or site scoping, but it is largely complete for a simple catalog-list tool.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule, a zero-parameter tool scores 4 here.

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 ('List') and resource ('BuilderX element/component types you can place on a page'), and its scope clearly differs from sibling tools that retrieve or mutate existing page elements. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of full 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 'you can place on a page' gives context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_element, search_page_elements, or get_page_schema. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are provided.

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