revit-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains that this is a read-only querying tool (implied by 'retrieve' and 'querying'), but lacks details on performance constraints (beyond the example's mention of post-processing), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The example adds practical context about how returned data should be processed, which is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a detailed example. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's role, the second explains the workflow, and the example concretely demonstrates usage. It could be more concise by tightening the example explanation, but overall it's efficiently front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple filtering parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job explaining the tool's role and workflow. The detailed example compensates for the lack of output schema by showing how returned data should be processed. However, it doesn't fully address all behavioral aspects like performance limits or error handling that would be needed for complete understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the example showing filterCategory and includeInstances usage. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional syntax guidance beyond what's in the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve detailed element information', 'querying tool') and resources ('Revit elements', 'Revit projects'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing its role as an intelligent filtering tool for AI assistants, unlike tools like delete_element or create_line_based_element which perform different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool through a detailed example scenario ('When a user asks...'), showing how the AI should invoke it for complex queries. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_selected_elements (which retrieves pre-selected elements) or get_current_view_elements (which focuses on current view visibility) by emphasizing flexible filtering across the entire project.

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