Batch collection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by noting the status is durable and readable after the initiating client exits, but it says nothing about what the status contains, whether it is a snapshot vs. live, or why idempotentHint is false for a read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the read action is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so conciseness is not the problem.

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 described, and the safety profile is in annotations. What is still missing is the relationship to the other batch tools and any hint about the run_id's origin, which matters for a polling-style status endpoint.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented run_id parameter, and it does not — no format, source, or lifecycle for the id is given. The name is self-suggestive, but nothing in the definition tells the agent where run_id comes from or what happens if it is stale.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('run and model status'), and 'durable' hints that the run survives client exit, which is meaningful for a batch tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as revit_batch_fetch or revit_batch_start, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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 supplies a timing condition — check status 'after the initiating client exits' — which implies when it is useful. But it names no alternatives (revit_batch_fetch, revit_batch_cancel) and gives no exclusion about when this is the wrong tool to call.

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