get_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., invalid category), whether results are limited to visible elements, or any side effects. The limit parameter is already in the schema, so no new behavioral context is added.

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 appropriately sized: one opening sentence states the action and scope, followed by a concise Args section that documents both parameters. Every sentence is useful and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters, and the description covers the essential 'what' and 'how'. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned elements look like (e.g., IDs, names) or what happens when a category does not exist. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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 schema provides only titles and a default, with zero property descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: category includes concrete examples ('Walls', 'Doors', 'Rooms', 'Floors') and limit clarifies its purpose and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 starts with a clear action: 'Get elements from the active Revit model by category name.' It specifies the resource (active Revit model), the method (by category), and distinguishes from siblings like get_selection (selected elements) and get_categories (categories).

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 such as find_elements or get_selection. There are no explicit use-case constraints, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description implies a basic query operation but does not help the agent choose among siblings.

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