get_warnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (grouped warnings with counts and sample element ids) and implies a read-only operation via the name 'get_warnings' and 'reports,' but it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. While safe, this leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent, hence a mid-range score.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition. The description is front-loaded with the key information and remains highly readable.

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 has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: grouped by type with counts and sample element ids. It also covers the primary use case. For a zero-parameter tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, zero parameters receive a baseline of 4. The description adds relevant meaning about the output structure (grouping, counts, sample ids) without needing to explain parameters.

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's purpose: 'every warning Revit currently reports, grouped by type with counts and sample element ids.' It uses specific terms (warning, grouped, counts, element ids) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_elements or get_categories. The function is unambiguous and resource-specific.

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 that this is a 'Model health check' and suggests a specific follow-up action ('Use override_graphics on the element_ids to show a warning group in the model'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or describe alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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