Review My Tool

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 the meaningful behavioral note that no execution occurs, but leaves open what 'approved' means (approval workflow? validation state?) and what happens if the named tool is absent, which matters for an agent deciding whether to fall back to revit_list_tools.

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 short sentence with no filler; the key constraint ('without execution') is placed where it will be read. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with a required name parameter at 0% schema coverage and four plausible siblings (list/save/run/delete tool), the description omits both the parameter's role and the routing logic, leaving real 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 0% and the single parameter 'name' has only a regex pattern, no prose. The description never mentions the name argument or its format/lookup semantics, so an agent gets no help beyond guessing that it identifies the tool — the structured data does not compensate, and the description does not either.

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 verb 'return' and object 'source and schema' point at retrieving a stored tool definition, and 'without execution' separates it from revit_run_tool. But 'approved' is undefined and the object of retrieval (a saved tool, presumably identified by name) is never stated, so the purpose is only inferable from the tool name rather than the description.

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?

'Without execution' hints that this is the inspect-instead-of-run path versus revit_run_tool, but that's the only guidance. There's no explicit when-to-use, no differentiation from revit_list_tools (which presumably enumerates tools) or revit_save_tool, and no stated precondition such as the tool needing to exist.

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