launch_revit

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes auto-detection of installed versions, polling until ready, and native worksharing dialog. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is blocking or asynchronous, nor does it mention any return value or side effects beyond launching.

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 with a concise intro, a key behavioral note about workshared files, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., success status, process ID, or connection handle). It mentions polling until ready but not the outcome. This leaves a gap in understanding the tool's complete behavior.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter in the Args section: file_path (file types, optional), version (year, default latest), language (code, optional), and timeout (seconds, default 120). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Launch Revit on this machine' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like open_document by explaining that for workshared files, Revit shows its native dialog, and suggests using open_document for more control.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to launch Revit) and gives an alternative for workshared files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the alternative is well-explained.

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