get_current_view_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description correctly does not contradict it. The description adds only that the target is the 'active' view, with no detail on scope limits or freshness; with an output schema present, no further return-value disclosure is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a no-argument read tool. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, leaving the sibling differentiation unstated.

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 simple, no-parameter read operation with a full output schema and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete. The only missing element an agent might want is explicit routing guidance relative to get_revit_view and get_current_view_elements.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs beyond confirming the implicit context is the current view.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads the active view's properties and settings'), and the word 'active' implicitly differentiates it from get_revit_view and list_revit_views, which presumably target arbitrary views. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the distinction is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'active' – an agent can infer this is the tool for the view currently open rather than a view looked up by id. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to the alternatives (get_revit_view, list_revit_views, get_current_view_elements).

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