list_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Read from a sample element') and describes the data returned. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it explain how the sample is chosen or what happens if the category is empty or invalid.

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 compact (about 50 words), with a clear purpose sentence, a usage sentence, and a concise parameter explanation. There is no redundancy; every sentence adds value and it is well-structured.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It covers the core purpose, usage, parameter definition, and expected return fields. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as empty categories or multiple element types, which is a notable gap for an agent relying solely on this text.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the category parameter, but the description compensates with an 'Args:' section defining it as 'Revit category name, e.g. Doors' and giving a concrete example. This is sufficient for an agent to supply the parameter correctly, though it lacks details like case sensitivity or exact matching rules.

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 opens with 'List which parameters a category's elements have' – a specific verb and resource, and it enumerates the returned fields (name, instance/type scope, data type, writable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_properties or set_parameters. The phrase 'Read from a sample element' further clarifies the mechanism.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this before filtering or writing when unsure of exact names,' giving a clear when-to-use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like get_element_properties, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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