get_current_view_elements

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explains truncated behavior and return fields, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects. For a read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise (~8 lines), front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, special notes, and args. No fluff, well-organized.

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?

No output schema provided, but description details return fields and truncation handling. Covers enough for a list tool. Might need mention of document requirement, but overall complete given context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet description explains all three parameters (limit, include_levels, include_location) with defaults and purpose. This compensates well for schema gaps. Could mention limits on range, but still strong.

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?

Purpose is clear: 'Get elements visible in the currently active view in Revit.' The verb 'get' and resource 'elements' are specific, with context 'visible in active view.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_current_view_info or list_revit_views.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., execute_revit_code, list_revit_views). It mentions handling truncation but provides no exclusions or context about prerequisites like an open document.

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