List BIM Model Revisions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe behavior. The description adds value by explaining the return format (paginated JSON array with metadata) and mentioning pagination control via page and per_page. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third describes return type, fourth covers pagination details, fifth notes required parameter, and last provides API context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, pagination, and API endpoint. It could optionally mention available filters (view, sort) but the schema handles that. The description is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces pagination parameters and required project_id, but does not significantly add semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Lists BIM Model Revisions'), resource (BIM Model Revisions), and scope (associated with the specified Project). It provides specific use cases such as enumeration, paginated overview, and ID finding, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other BIM entities.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to enumerate BIM records for a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, the guidance is clear and sufficient for typical usage.

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