Build Snapshot Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the operation is purely local and does not touch Revit, but says nothing about failure modes, snapshot format expectations, or how findings/previous_dir affect behavior.

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 zero filler; the source (snapshots) and the key constraint (no Revit contact) come first. Nothing is wasted.

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 annotations plus full schema coverage carry safety and parameter detail. The description is thin on the workflow relationship between snapshots_dir and previous_dir, but overall the structured fields fill the gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the notable 'existing files are never replaced' constraint on output_path. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Build) and resource (local Excel report) plus a clear source (snapshots) and scope qualifier (without contacting Revit). The 'without contacting Revit' clause meaningfully separates it from the Revit-contacting siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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 phrase 'without contacting Revit' implies an offline/post-hoc scenario, giving an implicit sense of when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. use revit_model_snapshot first to create the snapshots).

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