revit_get_warnings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and references the 'bound' instance, but says nothing about connection requirements, what happens if no instance is bound, whether warnings are deduplicated/grouped, or any failure modes.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than being a pure virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the parameters, connection assumptions, and failure behavior undocumented.

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% for both port and doc_name, and the description never mentions them. The phrase 'bound Revit instance' hints at instance targeting but does not explain how port or doc_name select or override it, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (active model warnings) scoped to the bound Revit instance, which is unique among siblings like revit_get_selection or revit_get_active_model. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the resource is distinct enough that no routing confusion arises.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. must an instance be bound/active first?), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Retrieves'.

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