get_current_view_elements

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, that category_counts is always computed, truncation flag, and instructions to compare total_elements vs returned_elements and increase limit, providing strong behavioral insight beyond the tool's name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return details, truncation handling, and parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes information, with no redundant 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 has no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values, truncation handling, and optional parameter effects. It covers the tool's core behavior and edge cases (truncation) completely for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema only provides titles and defaults, so the description fully compensates by explaining limit as maximum number to return and include_levels/include_location semantics with exact output implications. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 uses the precise verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'elements visible in the currently active view in Revit', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_selected_elements or list_revit_views. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly states it retrieves elements in the active view, implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as get_selected_elements or get_revit_view, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. This is acceptable context but lacks explicit alternative naming.

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