list_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output structure (grouped by category, one-line summary, container flag) and the scope (only element types placeable on a page), which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating action, and no side effects are suggested.

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 that front-loads the core function (list element types) and adds useful output details without fluff. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and result.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (categories with one-line summaries and container flags). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but such details are unlikely to be critical for this operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by definition. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to introduce any. The baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool lists all BuilderX element/component types placeable on a page, grouped by category with summary and container flag. This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_pages or list_global_sources. It uses a specific verb and 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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need to discover element types available for page composition. It provides clear context about the scope (element types placeable on a page) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like list_global_sources or search_page_elements are not referenced.

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