List BIM Levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds unique behavioral details beyond these: pagination behavior ('the response reports how many pages remain') and failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool will do and how errors manifest.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers usage, return format, safety, and errors. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary and repeats the read-only hint from annotations, but every sentence carries operational value.

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 output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what is returned (JSON array of BIM levels), pagination control, required parameter, error handling, and read-only safety. It does not enumerate return fields, but for a list endpoint this is acceptable given the annotations and schema detail.

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 each parameter already has its own description. The tool description only notes that project_id is required and that page/per_page control pagination—facts already present in the schema. It does not add meaningful parameter-level explanation 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 opens with a clear verb+object+scope: 'Lists BIM Levels associated with the specified Project.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_bim_level, show_bim_level, update_bim_level, and delete_bim_level.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover BIM levels or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., show_bim_level for a single record) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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