Read element data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating exactly which aspects of element data are read (type, layer, properties, classifications), but it does not disclose any additional traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and key outputs. Every clause adds value: the read scope, the property addressing syntax, and the optional classifications flag. 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?

For a read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema explaining return structure, the description is largely complete. It covers the core required input and the optional parameter semantics. The only real omission is the meaning of 'port', but because it defaults to null and is not required for invoking the tool, the description remains sufficient for correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds meaningful guidance for 'properties' with the 'Group/Name' addressing convention, clarifies that classifications are optional, and implies 'guids' identify the elements. Only 'port' remains unexplained, but its default null and optional nature reduce the impact of that gap.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('element data') and enumerates exactly what is returned: type, layer, requested properties, and optionally classifications. It is specific and distinguishable from mutation tools like set_element_data, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling query_elements.

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 'for the given element GUIDs' implies when to use this tool: when you have element identifiers and need their data. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as query_elements or list_instances, leaving some selection judgment to the agent.

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