launch_revit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: automatically finding installed versions, polling the pyRevit Routes health endpoint, and showing a worksharing dialog for central models. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, or behavior when a version is invalid, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise behavioral notes, a paragraph on worksharing with an alternative, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without repetition or padding.

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 description covers the main workflow and parameters, but without an output schema it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, launched version, errors). It also omits edge cases like multiple installed versions or already-running instances. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, some crucial information is missing.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for its parameters, so the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains file_path extensions (.rvt, .rfa, .rte), version as a year with 'Uses latest if omitted,' language as a code with examples, and timeout as seconds with a default of 120. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Launch Revit on this machine, optionally opening a file,' which clearly states the action and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_document by explaining the launch and readiness-check behavior, making the tool's specific role unmistakable.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Use the open_document tool after launch for more control over worksharing options like detach from central,' providing a clear alternative for a specific scenario. It also explains the automatic version discovery and readiness polling, giving context on when this tool is appropriate.

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