Show BIM Model Revision

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, endpoint). It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or other behaviors beyond what annotations suggest.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two short lines. Every sentence contributes unique value (purpose, usage context, required parameters, API location). No redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity, annotations covering read-only behavior, and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the return type (JSON object) and required parameters. However, it does not clarify the view parameter or pagination, though those are in the schema. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on return fields could improve completeness, but it remains adequate.

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 for all 5 parameters, including enums. The description only reiterates required parameters (id, project_id) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already explains parameters fully.

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 it returns a single BIM Model Revision, using 'Return' and 'fetch' as verbs. It specifies the resource ('BIM Model Revision') and distinguishes from list tools by indicating single record retrieval by identifier. The endpoint and API section provided further clarity.

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 when a single revision's full details are needed via identifier, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling tools (e.g., list_bim_model_revisions). No alternative tool names or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the guidance implied.

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