get_revit_dialogs

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

No annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden — and it does: it explains that the tool works even when the main API is blocked, that it also surfaces recently auto-handled warnings, and that dialog text is untrusted data, a valuable security caveat. It stops short of noting whether reading dialogs alters dialog state or what happens to unhandled dialogs.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: capability, payload, prompt-injection warning, and usage trigger. The blocking-resilience and returned-contents facts are front-loaded.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and has no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return contents (messages, buttons, hashes, recent auto-handled warnings) fills exactly the gap an agent would otherwise have. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and 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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this is a 4. The description correctly asks nothing of the caller and needs no parameter documentation.

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: inspect modal dialogs of the managed Revit instance, and enumerates the returned content (messages, buttons, snapshot hashes, auto-handled warnings). Sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit — inspection is contrasted with clicking via 'before asking the user to click routine Revit warnings', but click_revit_dialog_button is never named.

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?

'Use this before asking the user to click routine Revit warnings' supplies a clear trigger condition and an implied alternative pathway (user clicking). 'Even when its main API is blocked' clarifies the operating context in which this tool is the right choice. No explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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