get_element_properties

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'get'. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, error handling, return format, or side effects. For a getter with no annotation context, 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.

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

The description is short, with a clear single-sentence purpose and an argument list. It is easy to scan and free of fluff, though the Args section redundantly mirrors schema information.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks any mention of output shape, behavior for invalid IDs, or what 'all properties' includes. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the burden, making it incomplete.

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%, and the description repeats the parameter name and type ('integer ID') without adding meaningful context like bounds, defaults, or relationship to the element. The schema already provides the type and title, so the description adds little value.

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 the tool gets all properties/parameters of a specific Revit element by ID. It names the specific resource (Revit element) and the action (get), distinguishing it from siblings like get_elements and list_parameters.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_parameters or get_elements could be confused with this one, but the description gives no differentiation or preferred context.

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