List Instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: fallback mechanisms in Local/SSH modes, HTTP mode limitations, and error behavior on transport failures. It also clarifies what fallback records look like (empty document, pluginResponding=false). This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise, with key behavioral facts front-loaded (what it lists, then mode-specific behavior, then usage guidance). Sentences are efficient, though a bit dense. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values in depth, but it does list main fields. It covers enough about behavior for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect across modes. Minor missing: no explicit statement of idempotency, but that's covered by annotations. Overall, it is complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the `document` parameter, including a detailed description. The description adds some context about using a unique substring, but that is also echoed in the schema. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists Revit processes and their active documents, naming specific returned fieldsrelation to siblings. It lists specific data returned (documentName, documentPath, etc.), which is precise, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond its listing nature.

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 description says 'Use this tool before choosing a unique document substring for other tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the behavior of the `document` parameter partially in the description ('no matching instances return []'), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it in favor of a specific alternative. However, the contextual guidance is strong.

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