get_revit_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks liveness, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention side effects (likely none) or the exact nature of the response. Given the simplicity of a status check, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, stating the exact purpose in a compact form.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), but the description does not specify what the return value will be (e.g., a boolean or status message). For a status check, this is likely sufficient, but given no output schema, it would be more complete to briefly indicate the expected response format.

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 input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no extra semantics are required.

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 'Check if the Revit MCP API is active and responding' clearly states a specific verb ('check'), resource ('Revit MCP API'), and desired outcome (active/responding). It distinguishes from siblings like get_revit_security_status (security-specific) and get_revit_model_info (model info), making its purpose 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer it as a pre-flight health check before making other Revit API calls, but the description does not state this relationship or exclude any sibling tools.

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