Check NWC Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a non-empty 'skipped' list means the answer is incomplete, and skippedCount can exceed the first 100 entries. That truncation disclosure is real value beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing the result payload.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action, then the instance-selection rule, then the truncation caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is dense with multiple clauses packed into one line.

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 no explanation. The description covers instance selection and the incomplete-answer signal, which are the key gotchas for correct invocation. Adequate for this complexity level.

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 80%, so the schema already documents document, process_id, timeout_seconds, and pickup_timeout_seconds in detail. The description only restates the multi-instance document requirement, adding little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Navisworks exporter XML file') with the scoping constraint 'on the Revit workstation without exporting,' which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling revit_export_nwc by explicitly negating export. An agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage condition for the document parameter (required when more than one Revit instance is running) and the truncation caveat, but never states the high-level when-to-use case (e.g. verify settings before exporting) or exclusions versus revit_export_nwc. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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