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 genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: a non-empty 'skipped' list means the result is incomplete, and skippedCount totals all skipped entries — a partial-result caveat not derivable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the opening verb+resource clause. Slightly terse and unsegmented, but every sentence carries information.

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-value structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the one thing an agent needs to interpret a partial response correctly (the skipped/skippedCount meaning), making it essentially complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter (process_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it including its precedence over 'document'. The description does not mention process_id at all, so it adds nothing on parameters; 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 ('Read') with a concrete resource set: active document, open views, selection, and open documents. It is distinguishable from narrower siblings like revit_document_info or revit_list_views, though it never names those siblings to clarify the overlap.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when to prefer this aggregate UI-state read over revit_document_info, revit_list_views, or revit_view_summary, nor any exclusion condition. The agent must infer the use case from the resource list alone.

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