get_current_view_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly lists the specific return fields (view name, type, ID, scale, detail level, crop box status, etc.), which tells the agent what to expect from the tool. It does not mention read-only status explicitly, but 'Get' implies a read operation with no side effects. This is better than many tools that fail to describe outputs.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bullet list of the comprehensive information returned. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete—it lists all the key data fields the tool returns. It lacks explicit guidance about when to use this versus get_revit_view, but the purpose is clear enough that this is a minor gap. Overall, it adequately covers the relevant context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters since there is nothing for the description to add. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about the currently active view in Revit.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active view'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_revit_views (which lists views) and get_revit_view (which likely retrieves a specific view by ID).

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 you need info about the active view—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so guidance is only implicit. For a tool with clear sibling distinctions, explicit advice would elevate this to 5.

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