revit_get_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what information is returned, whether the operation has side effects, permission requirements, or how the 'bound' document is determined. The only behavioral hint is 'currently selected,' which is minimal for a 2-param tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without waste. It is appropriately sized, though the emptiness of behavioral and parameter detail suggests the brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return format needn't be described), the tool has two undocumented parameters and no annotations, and the description does not address either gap. For a tool that depends on the active document and selection state, more context is needed about prerequisites and parameter roles.

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 neither port nor doc_name is documented anywhere. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent with no guidance on what port and doc_name mean or how they affect the result. Low coverage demands compensation that the description does not provide.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieves information about currently selected elements in the bound Revit document.' This clearly distinguishes it from nearby siblings like revit_request_user_selection (which likely prompts the user to make a selection) and revit_get_element_geometry (which retrieves geometry rather than selection metadata). It is clear but does not explicitly draw the contrast with those siblings.

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 'currently selected' phrasing implies the tool is used after a selection exists, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as revit_request_user_selection. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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