xuat_excel_khoi_luong

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

Annotations are present, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral value: files are numbered NN_, never overwritten, and 'Hao hụt và mã hiệu để trống cho kỹ sư điền'. It also scopes the write behavior — it reads the Revit model and writes a file, explaining why readOnlyHint is false despite 'chỉ đọc mô hình'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by short, information-dense lines. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct fact (destination, naming, non-overwrite, read-only scope).

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 no explanation, and the write/destination behavior is well covered. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented 'revit' parameter and the absence of when-to-use routing against the sibling set.

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 must carry both parameters, but only 'thu_muc' is explained (absolute path, blank defaults to Documents\vn-revit-mcp). The 'revit' parameter is left completely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Xuất bảng khối lượng ... ra file Excel' — and enumerates the covered categories (tường, sàn, kết cấu, cửa, phòng). The 'ra file Excel' output distinguishes it implicitly from the computation-only siblings (khoi_luong_tuong, thong_ke_cua, etc.), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides operational context (default save location, NN_ numbering, no overwrite) but never states when to choose this tool over the many quantity/statistics siblings. Usage is implied by the export framing rather than explicitly scoped.

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