Look up Revit API types and members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results reflect only the running Revit's API version, XML summaries may be absent, and 'skipped means incomplete; skippedCount is the total skipped' warns about partial results.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage trigger then caveats. It is telegraphic in places ('skipped means incomplete') but every sentence carries information and none is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully flags partial-result semantics. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 38% schema coverage, the meaning of the enum and the three undocumented boolean/integer parameters is left entirely implicit.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains the 'kind' enum values (type/member/search), what 'limit' caps, what 'include_obsolete' or 'include_inherited' change, or how 'query' is matched.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up public Revit API types and members') and scopes it to reflection over the Revit API. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are document/model mutation or query tools rather than API documentation lookup.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: 'The agent calls this before writing C# for an unfamiliar type.' That tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not name exclusions or an alternative tool, but no sibling covers API metadata, so the practical ambiguity is low.

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