List My Tools

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, read-only listing, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact — results exclude source — which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether user-defined vs built-in tools are included.

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 seven-word sentence with zero filler and the key restriction placed at the end. It is efficient, though the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, output schema present, annotations complete), which lowers the burden, but the description never defines what a "saved tool" is or what "without source" excludes, leaving the agent to infer both.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema_covers_everything baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, though it also offers no clarification of what the parameterless call scope implies.

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+resource pair ("List saved tools and schemas") is identifiable, but the trailing qualifier "without source" is cryptic and does not clearly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as revit_get_tool, revit_list_catalog, or revit_run_tool. An agent can guess the purpose but cannot confidently rule out the alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. Given that the sibling set contains revit_get_tool, revit_save_tool, revit_run_tool, and revit_list_catalog, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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