kiem_tra_tham_so

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics by defining what counts as a hit ('chưa có hoặc để trống' – absent or left blank), which goes slightly beyond the annotations. It says nothing about scope limits, scan cost, or return volume.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact per-parameter gloss with concrete examples. Nothing is padded or repeated. The trailing blank line is trivial noise but the structure is efficient overall.

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 return values need not be explained. The description covers the purpose and both required inputs in enough detail to call the tool correctly, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the undocumented optional 'revit' parameter and the absence of usage guidance.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain the two required parameters well: hang_muc accepts either a BuiltInCategory name (OST_Doors) or a Vietnamese colloquial name (cua, tuong, phong), and tham_so must be the exact Revit parameter name (e.g. 'Mark', 'Comments'). The third parameter 'revit' is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, which prevents a 5.

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 states a specific operation on a specific resource: finding elements of a category that lack or have an empty parameter. This is clearly distinct from siblings like dat_tham_so (setting a parameter) or dem_theo_hang_muc (counting), though it never names those siblings explicitly. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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 many sibling audit/statistics tools (dat_tham_so, kiem_tra_ket_noi, thong_ke_phong). The agent must infer the use case from the purpose sentence alone. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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