Revit UI State

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 adds non-annotation behavior: multi-instance selection semantics and, importantly, the truncation caveat ('Non-empty skipped means the answer is incomplete; skippedCount includes entries beyond the first 100'). That truncation disclosure is valuable and not derivable from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the two operational caveats (instance selection, truncation). Dense but earns its place; no filler text.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining operational gaps an agent needs: which instance answers and how truncation shows up in the response. Minor missing piece is no explicit routing versus sibling read tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents process_id fully (including precedence over document). The description only restates the instance-selection intent and adds that any instance may respond otherwise; it adds marginal meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (Read) and enumerates the resources returned: active document, open views, selection, and open documents. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like revit_document_info, revit_documents, or revit_list_views, 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?

Provides conditional guidance for the multi-instance case ('use process_id to choose one; otherwise any instance may respond'), which is genuine when-to-use context. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling read tools such as revit_document_info or revit_view_info, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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