核验 Revit 隧道批次

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only '不会修改 Revit' (will not modify Revit), which is redundant with the annotations. No new behavioral context—such as output format, pagination, or side effects—is disclosed beyond what annotations provide. With annotations present, the baseline for added value is low, but the description provides none.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('按批次标识反查') and lists the returned fields. No filler or repetition. Every clause contributes information, making it efficient and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with a single parameter, the description covers the core purpose, the safety guarantee (reinforced by annotations), and the output scope (overall ring, family, tag, bbox, volume, orientation). It does not detail return formatting or error handling, but for a simple inspection tool these are minor gaps given the low complexity and presence of an output list.

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%—the batch_id parameter already has a description ('创建时使用的批次标识'). The tool description reiterates '按批次标识' without adding extra semantic detail like format specifics or usage nuance. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate with additional parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb (inspect / reverse-lookup), the resource (tunnel batch by batch_id), and the specific data returned (overall ring, family, tag, bbox, volume, orientation). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling inspect_tunnel_segment_batch, which presumably focuses on individual segments, though it does not explicitly name it. Thus it is clear but relies on name comparison rather than an explicit differentiator.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description explains what it does but does not mention alternatives (e.g., inspect_tunnel_segment_batch for segment-level details, or preview tools for non-authoritative checks). An agent would have to infer the use case from the name and description alone, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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