get_current_view_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose important behaviors: includeHidden toggles inclusion of invisible elements (implying they are excluded by default), and limit controls the returned count. However, it does not mention the tool's read-only nature, error handling for invalid category names, or the return format (e.g., element IDs vs. objects). This is partial transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and finishes with the filtering options. No wasted words or redundant detail. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 description covers the core function and main options but omits the return format since there is no output schema. It does not state whether it returns element IDs, elements, or some other representation, which could be critical for an agent. It also doesn't address edge cases like empty views or invalid categories. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a gap.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds simple examples like 'Walls, Floors' and 'Dimensions, Text' to clarify category types, which is slightly more intuitive than the schema's built examples (e.g., 'OST_Walls'). It also explains includeHidden and limit functionally, but these are already in the schema. Overall, it adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Get elements from the current active view in Revit.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_current_view_info (which likely gets view metadata, not elements) and get_selected_elements (which gets user-selected elements, not all view elements). The verb 'Get' and resource 'elements from current active view' are precise.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need elements from the current active view, with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when you need selected elements instead of all view elements). This gives clear context without exclusions.

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