Calculate floor quantities by type and level in an open Revit model, returning area (m2), volume (m3), and thickness (mm) for takeoff and validation.
Khối lượng sàn theo loại và tầng: diện tích (m2), thể tích (m3), độ dày (mm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation grain (by type and floor) and the units of the returned quantities, which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about scope limits, permissions, or how the optional revit argument changes behavior.
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?
One compact sentence with the resource and grouping front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, but the terseness comes at the cost of leaving usage and parameter information unstated.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of area/volume/thickness is partly redundant and return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'revit' parameter and the absence of any routing guidance among the several sibling quantity tools.
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 0% and the single parameter 'revit' is never mentioned in the description. With a non-zero parameter count, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented argument, and it does not.
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 names a specific resource ('Khối lượng sàn' – floor quantity) and scopes it by type and floor, with the computed dimensions (area m2, volume m3, thickness mm) called out. This implicitly separates it from siblings like khoi_luong_ket_cau and khoi_luong_tuong, though it never names those alternatives.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the structurally similar siblings (khoi_luong_ket_cau, khoi_luong_tuong, thong_ke_phong), nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the word 'sàn'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.