get_revit_operation_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful state-machine semantics (waiting_for_dialog, outcome_unknown) plus retry-safety rules that would otherwise cause duplicate writes. It does not say whether the call blocks or waits, nor what the returned result contains, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the safety constraints. No sentence is redundant or padded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the agent without return-value structure or parameter meaning. The retry-safety guidance is strong, but an agent still cannot tell what the result object holds or how to use wait_ms.

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 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. operation_id is only obliquely implied by 'the original Revit operation', and wait_ms — including its 0–30000ms range and whether it blocks — is never mentioned.

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 and resource: read the result of the original Revit operation, scoped to after a modal dialog is resolved. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_revit_automation_status and get_revit_dialogs, though the differentiation is by implication rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: do not repeat a model write on a waiting_for_dialog result, and inspect the model before retrying after outcome_unknown. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_revit_automation_status, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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