get_tool_choices

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns parameter-name-to-options mapping and targets only parameters that need selection. No side effects, permissions, or error behavior are described, but for a read-only query tool with an output schema this is acceptable.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the sequencing guidance is immediate, and the return format is stated exactly. Every sentence contributes a distinct, useful fact.

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 one simple parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: discover choices before running. The only notable gap is the imprecise parameter meaning, and there is no mention of what happens if the tool is not yet solidified. These are minor given the low complexity and existing output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'name' parameter. It says 'of a solidified tool' but never explicitly states that name is the solidified tool's name; this is only implied. A clear mapping such as 'name = the name of the solidified tool' would have compensated for the empty schema, and its absence makes the parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 a specific verb-resource pairing ('Query Revit for dynamic parameter choices of a solidified tool') and adds the return shape, so an agent knows exactly what to expect. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by positioning it as the discovery step before run_tool, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE run_tool to discover available levels, family types, etc.' This is clear context for the primary use case. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or name multiple alternatives, but the run_tool reference is sufficient for typical agent selection.

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