get_revit_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that it probes connectivity to the bridge and whether a document is loaded, but says nothing about failure modes (bridge down, no document open) or latency for a health probe.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and both pieces of information returned. No filler.

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?

An output schema covers the return values and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to say what is checked, which it does. It could go further by telling the agent to call this before document-dependent tools, but nothing critical 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description also implicitly signals a no-argument call by describing only read scope.

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?

Names a specific verb (reads) and two concrete resources: bridge health and active document availability. This distinguishes it from data-reading siblings like get_revit_model_info or get_current_view_info, though the description does not explicitly say so.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus connections-checking siblings (list_revit_installations) or document-state siblings (get_revit_model_info). Usage is only implied by 'health' and 'availability', which an agent must infer as a pre-flight check.

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