get_revit_security_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple status report by explicitly stating that it never returns the token itself, reports each side separately, and explains why (disagreeing settings cause auth failures). This adds significant behavioral context that is not inferred from the name or schema.

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 somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: it states the tool's purpose, lists the exact security questions, provides usage scenarios, clarifies a key limitation, and explains the rationale for separate reporting. The line breaks improve structure, keeping it readable despite the length.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns conceptually, and a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe the exact response format or any potential error conditions, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 covers 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, no parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

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 reports the security posture of both halves of the bridge and lists the exact questions it answers. This specific verb+resource ('Report security posture') distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_revit_status, which is a general status check.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when the user asks whether the setup is safe, when a call was refused as unauthorized, or before rolling this out to more people.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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