Read Schedule Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: multi-instance resolution rules, and the fact that a non-empty 'skipped' means the answer is incomplete with a 100-entry cap on skippedCount. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before trusting the result.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded before the conditional multi-instance rule and the incompleteness caveat. Structure is efficient though the caveat sentence is dense.

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 not be described. For a 5-parameter read tool in a multi-instance environment, the description covers the two things the schema cannot: instance-selection behavior and result-completeness signaling. Minor gap: nothing on how many rows are typically returned or how to continue paging.

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 60%: document, process_id, and schedule are well documented in the schema, while offset and max_rows carry only type/default bounds. The description adds paging intent ('with paging') and the incomplete-result semantics, partially compensating, but it does not explain how offset/max_rows interact with skipped entries.

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: 'Read displayed schedule header and body cell text, with paging.' An agent immediately knows this returns cell text from a schedule. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling in the list reads schedule data, so the ambiguity is low.

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 supplies a conditional usage rule ('If more than one Revit instance is running, document is required'), which is genuinely useful routing context. However it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. revit_view_elements or revit_export_view), so usage is only partially guided.

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