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. It discloses some behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Get'), mentions filtering by categories, and describes what 'includeHidden' and 'limit' do. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no view is active, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise explanations of key parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, or dependencies. For a read tool with 4 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 value by briefly mentioning 'model categories' and 'annotation categories' and explaining 'includeHidden' and 'limit' in simple terms, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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: 'Get elements from the current active view in Revit.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('elements'), and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_selected_elements' or 'get_current_view_info', which would require a 5.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering options and parameters like 'includeHidden' and 'limit', but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'get_selected_elements' or specify prerequisites like needing an active view.

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