List Sheets

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 does add one genuinely behavioral detail beyond annotations and the output schema: that records may be skipped and that 'skippedCount' is the total skipped, signaling partial results. It stops short of explaining why records are skipped or whether results are paged.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, with the skipped/skippedCount note second. Nothing is padded, though the terseness leaves gaps rather than waste.

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 fields need little explanation, and the partial-result note is useful. However, a paginated list tool with three undocumented parameters and no indication of expected result volume or document-selection requirements leaves real gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is only 40%, with document and process_id documented but limit, offset and include_unplaced_views bare. The description does not compensate at all: no mention of pagination, default page size, or what include_unplaced_views changes about the response.

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 (list sheets) and names the payload elements returned: title blocks, revisions, placed view IDs, and unplaced views. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like revit_list_views, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over revit_list_views, revit_view_summary, or revit_schedule_data, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active document or a running Revit instance. The only usage-adjacent sentence concerns interpreting 'skipped', which is output semantics, not selection guidance.

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