Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• open_documentD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies document state, what permissions are required, whether it affects other tools' operations, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that presumably interacts with documents, this lack of behavioral information is a critical gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide the necessary information a user or agent needs to understand and use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal text doesn't fulfill the description's purpose of clarifying the tool's function.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides minimal information, this is inadequate for a document manipulation tool. The description doesn't explain what 'opening' entails, what happens after opening, whether the document becomes active/current, or how this interacts with sibling tools like 'get_current_document_info'. For a tool that likely changes application state, this level of documentation is insufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'filePath' documented as 'File Path'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting with complete coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the structured schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Open Document' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what 'open' means in this context (e.g., load into memory, display in UI, make editable) or what type of document is being opened. While the name suggests a document-related operation, the description fails to provide the specific verb+resource combination needed for clear understanding.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_current_document_info' and various element creation tools, there's no indication whether this tool is for initial document loading, switching between documents, or another purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations are mentioned.

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

• color_elementsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Each unique parameter value gets assigned a distinct color,' which hints at output behavior, but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive/permanent change, what happens if elements already have colors, if it requires specific permissions, or how colors are assigned (random vs. systematic). For a visual modification tool, this is insufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second clarifies the coloring mechanism. No redundant or vague phrasing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (visual modification tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: whether the coloring is temporary or persistent, what the visual output looks like, error conditions (e.g., invalid category/parameter), or how it integrates with sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient guidance for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'customColors' interacts with 'useGradient' or provide examples of parameter values). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Color elements in the current view based on a category and parameter value.' It specifies the action (color), target (elements in current view), and grouping mechanism (category and parameter value). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'operate_element' which might also manipulate view elements.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document or view), nor does it suggest when other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., 'get_current_view_elements' for inspection first). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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

• delete_elementC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects model integrity, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a destructive operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavior, consequences, or return values, which is insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'elementIds' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('elements from the Revit model by their element IDs'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'operate_element' or 'ai_element_filter', which might also involve element manipulation, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'operate_element' or 'get_selected_elements', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• get_selected_elementsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to limit returned elements, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if no elements are selected, the format of returned data, potential performance impacts, or any authentication/rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a single sentence. The second sentence adds useful parameter context without redundancy. While efficient, it could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly, but overall it avoids waste and is well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (interacting with Revit selections) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'elements' entail, the return format, error conditions, or dependencies like needing an active Revit session. For a tool with no structured data to fall back on, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds some value by explaining the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('limit the number of returned elements'), which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage. However, it doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents, such as default behavior when 'limit' is omitted or practical usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is met but not exceeded.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  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 elements currently selected in Revit.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('elements currently selected in Revit'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'ai_element_filter', which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance: 'You can limit the number of returned elements' hints at an optional parameter but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'ai_element_filter'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an open document or active selection, nor any exclusions or typical use cases.

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

• create_surface_based_elementB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions batch creation and units (mm), it lacks critical information such as whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second adds key details about batch support and units. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether elements are immediately visible or require view updates. The context signals indicate high complexity (nested objects in schema) that isn't adequately addressed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'detailed parameters including family type ID, boundary lines, thickness, and level information' and units (mm), but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('surface-based elements in Revit such as floors, ceilings, or roofs'), with specific examples that distinguish it from siblings like create_line_based_element or create_point_based_element. It precisely defines what the tool does beyond just restating the name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_line_based_element or create_point_based_element. It mentions batch creation and parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases in relation to sibling tools.

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

• operate_elementB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists actions like 'delete' (implying destructive operations) and 'select' (implying non-destructive), it doesn't clarify permissions needed, reversibility of actions, or side effects. For example, it mentions 'Delete permanently removes elements' but doesn't warn about data loss or confirmations. This is inadequate for a multi-action tool with potentially destructive behaviors.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and listing key actions. However, the detailed explanations of action values are embedded in the schema description rather than the tool description itself, which keeps the main description lean but might split context. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions with varying behaviors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action semantics well but misses critical behavioral details like permissions, reversibility, and error handling. For a tool with destructive operations like 'delete', this gap is significant, though the parameter explanations provide some mitigation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It explains the semantics of the 'action' parameter by detailing what each value does (e.g., 'Select enables direct element selection', 'Delete permanently removes elements'), providing context that the schema's enum descriptions don't fully capture. This compensates for the schema's technical but less intuitive parameter definitions, making the tool's functionality clearer.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Operate on Revit elements by performing actions such as select, selectionBox, setColor, setTransparency, delete, hide, etc.' It specifies the verb ('operate on') and resource ('Revit elements'), and lists example actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'delete_element' or 'color_elements' that handle specific operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this multi-action tool versus specialized ones.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'delete_element' and 'color_elements' that handle specific actions, there's no indication whether this tool is a comprehensive alternative or has different use cases. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action list alone.

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

• get_current_document_infoB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('获取' - get), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if no view is active, response format, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states what the tool does. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes helpful examples of the attributes returned. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. It explains what information is retrieved and from where. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't detail the return format or structure, and it doesn't address potential edge cases (like what happens if no view is active). For a read-only tool with no parameters, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline score for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what information the tool retrieves. No parameter information is needed or expected given the empty input schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取 Revit 当前活动视图的详细信息' (Get detailed information about Revit's current active view). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('当前活动视图' - current active view), and lists example attributes ('视图类型、名称、比例等属性' - view type, name, scale, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_info' or 'get_current_view_elements', which reduces clarity about when to use this specific tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools that appear related to view information ('get_current_view_info', 'get_current_view_elements'), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or when one should be preferred over another. No context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions is provided.

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

• create_line_based_elementB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions batch creation and units (mm), but does not address critical behavioral aspects such as whether this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and batch capability, the second lists key parameters and units. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the creation action earlier. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of creating multiple Revit elements, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, permissions), error handling, and what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps, but for a creation tool in a domain like Revit, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('data') and its nested properties comprehensively. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'detailed parameters including family type ID, start and end points, thickness, height, and level information' and units (mm), but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('line-based elements in Revit such as walls, beams, or pipes'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_point_based_element and create_surface_based_element. It specifies the batch creation capability and domain context (Revit), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for creating line-based elements in Revit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_point_based_element or create_surface_based_element. It mentions batch creation and detailed parameters, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_available_family_typesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering and limiting, which are useful, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential performance impacts, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and succinctly outlines key features (filtering and limiting). Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (a read operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate for a simple query tool but could be more informative for reliable agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by summarizing the filtering and limiting options without providing additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('available family types in the current Revit project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'get_selected_elements', which also retrieve Revit elements but with different scopes or filters.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage through its mention of filtering capabilities ('filter by category and family name'), suggesting it's for retrieving family types with specific criteria. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_current_view_elements' for elements in the current view) or any prerequisites, leaving the context somewhat vague.

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

• send_code_to_revitB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that code is inserted into a template with access to Document and parameters, but lacks details on execution safety (e.g., potential side effects, error handling, or performance impacts). For a code execution tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Each sentence adds value by explaining the execution process and template context, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured but remains concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of executing C# code in Revit, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, execution environment constraints, or integration specifics. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective tool use in a complex context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that code is inserted into the Execute method, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Send C# code to Revit for execution') and resource ('Revit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform operations like filtering, creating elements, or getting document info. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by specifying that code should be written for the Execute method of a template, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Revit automation tools or sibling tools). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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

• tag_all_wallsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes the core action (creating tags at wall midpoints), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it modifies the document permanently, what happens if walls already have tags, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides critical behavioral detail about tag placement. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly states what the tool does and where tags are placed, but doesn't address behavioral implications, error handling, or result format. For a tool that modifies a document, more context about the mutation's nature would be helpful, though the core functionality is adequately described.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or relationships.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Create tags'), target resource ('all walls in the current active view'), and precise behavior ('Tags will be placed at the middle point of each wall'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'operate_element' by focusing specifically on tagging walls rather than general element operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active view with walls), doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate versus manual tagging or other tagging methods, and doesn't reference any sibling tools for related operations. The agent must infer usage context from the description alone.

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

• get_current_view_infoB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only operation ('获取' - get) which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no view is active. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose and provides examples of the information returned. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the core functionality.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what information the tool retrieves but doesn't describe the return format, structure, or possible error scenarios. For a read-only tool with no output schema, more detail about the response would be helpful, though the description meets basic requirements.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. According to scoring rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already provides (which is complete).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取 Revit 当前活动视图的详细信息' (Get detailed information about Revit's current active view). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('当前活动视图' - current active view), and lists example attributes ('视图类型、名称、比例等属性' - view type, name, scale, etc.). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_document_info', but the focus on 'view' vs 'document' provides implicit distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context through '当前活动视图' (current active view), suggesting it should be used when the user needs view-specific details in an active Revit session. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_document_info' (for document-level info) or 'get_current_view_elements' (for elements within the view). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• get_current_view_elementsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves elements from the current view, supports filtering by categories, and includes options for hidden elements and result limits. However, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like performance implications, error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if no view is active, leaving gaps for a tool with mutation-like context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with examples, and the second explains key parameters concisely. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic usage but lacks depth. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, which is a gap for a tool in a complex environment like Revit with many related operations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of filtering ('model categories like Walls, Floors' and 'annotation categories like Dimensions, Text') and the effects of 'includeHidden' and 'limit', but doesn't go beyond the schema's details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get elements') and resource ('from the current active view in Revit'), with specific filtering capabilities mentioned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_selected_elements' by focusing on the current view rather than selected elements, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ai_element_filter' or other view-related tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by mentioning filtering by model/annotation categories and controlling visibility/quantity, suggesting when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_selected_elements' or 'ai_element_filter', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• ai_element_filterA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's intelligent querying nature and provides an example workflow, but lacks critical behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications of different filters, error handling, or what format the returned data takes. The example mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify the structure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a detailed example that demonstrates practical usage. While the example is lengthy, it serves a clear pedagogical purpose. The description could be slightly more concise by reducing some redundancy in the example explanation.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex filtering tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and includes a helpful example. However, it lacks critical information about the return format, error conditions, performance characteristics, and how multiple filters interact - significant gaps given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured metadata.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions filtering criteria like 'category, type, visibility, or spatial location' which aligns with schema parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'retrieve detailed element information from Revit projects' with specific filtering capabilities (category, type, visibility, spatial location). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_view_elements' by emphasizing comprehensive filtering across the entire project rather than just current view elements.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('to answer complex user queries about Revit model elements') and includes a detailed example workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools for simpler queries.

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

• create_point_based_elementA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses creation behavior and batch capability, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what happens on failure. The unit specification (mm) is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second adds parameter categories and unit specification. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the what and some how, but lacks behavioral details like error handling, permissions, or return values. The unit specification helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the batch nature ('one or more'), specifying units ('millimeters (mm)'), and listing parameter categories ('family type ID, position, dimensions, and level information'), elevating it above baseline.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'point-based elements in Revit' with specific examples (doors, windows, furniture). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_line_based_element' and 'create_surface_based_element' by specifying the element type category.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context through 'point-based elements' and mentions batch creation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'create_line_based_element' or 'create_surface_based_element'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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