revit_ping

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool checks connectivity and reports the active instance, implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but does not state whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or what the response contains beyond the active instance.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool, though it could include a brief note on optional parameters without becoming verbose.

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 are covered. However, the description omits any explanation of the two optional parameters, leaving a gap for an agent deciding whether to pass port or doc_name.

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 two optional parameters (port, doc_name). The description does not mention either parameter, so an agent receives no guidance on what they mean or when to supply them. The schema titles alone are minimal.

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 and resource: 'Checks connection health' and 'reports the active instance.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from siblings like revit_get_active_model, which may also report the active instance.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revit_list_instances or revit_get_active_model. Usage is implied by 'checks connection health,' but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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