List BIM Model Revision Plans

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is pagination behavior (paginated JSON array with metadata). This is useful context but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations convey.

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 four sentences long, each serving a purpose: stating the action, usage guidance, return format, and required parameter. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, earning a 4 for conciseness.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should detail the return value structure. It mentions 'paginated JSON array of BIM records' and 'pagination metadata,' but lacks specifics about the fields in each record (e.g., id, name, timestamps). It also does not cover error handling or rate limits, though annotations cover safety.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions project_id is required and that page/per_page control pagination. The view enum and filter parameters are already well described in 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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'BIM Model Revision Plans' associated with a Project. It distinguishes from siblings like show_bim_model_revision_plan by indicating that this tool provides a paginated overview and supports filtering, making it clear for enumeration tasks.

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 explains when to use the tool: for paginated overviews, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters. It mentions the required project_id parameter but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_bim_model_revisions or list_bim_plans, which would strengthen guidance.

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