View Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no repetition, and an output schema exists to describe returns. The description does add genuinely non-structured context by explaining that "skipped" indicates an incomplete result and that skippedCount is the total, which tells the agent how to interpret partial data rather than treating it as success. Beyond that it says nothing about view-name resolution failures or timeout behavior that would be useful for a read tool that can partially fail.

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 with no filler, and the primary payload description is front-loaded. The second sentence is a deliberate clarification of a specific output field rather than padding, though it would read better folded into a sentence about partial results.

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 a full output schema, read-only annotations and 100% parameter coverage, most of the burden is carried by structured data, so the description only needs to add routing and interpretation. It covers interpretation of skipped results but leaves the agent without guidance on when this tool beats revit_view_summary or revit_view_elements, which is the main remaining gap for a crowded view-related tool set.

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 explains that "view" must be an exact non-template name from revit_list_views or a decimal ID, and documents document, process_id and timeout_seconds. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Inspect one view's template, display, categories, worksets, filters and links" gives a specific verb (inspect), a specific resource cardinality (one view), and enumerates the data domains returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from near siblings like revit_view_summary, revit_view_elements, or revit_view_warnings, so the reader has to 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when to prefer this over revit_view_summary or revit_view_elements, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of template views (that constraint lives only in the schema). Usage is at best implied by the tool name and the listed return domains.

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