Show Elements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it opens views, may suppress dialogs, and returns activeView/viewOpened/dialogsSuppressed. It also flags that unknown/ambiguous document references are rejected before any change, which is useful for a state-affecting tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and view-opening behavior, followed by the document rule. It slightly duplicates the output schema by naming return fields, but there is little 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate returns (though it does), and it covers the key document-disambiguation precondition. The main remaining gap is the undocumented select/element_ids semantics against a low schema coverage.

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 33%, with select and element_ids undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by noting IDs are unitless and that select is optional, and by clarifying the document disambiguation rule, but it leaves the select semantics and ID format largely implicit.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Show elements') and adds scope detail ('optionally selecting them; open a level plan or 3D view when needed'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like revit_select or revit_isolate, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives contextual cues ('open a level plan or 3D view when needed', 'Pass document ... when several are open') but never states when to prefer this over revit_select, revit_isolate, or revit_view_elements. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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