核验 Revit 独立管片批次

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

注释已声明readOnlyHint=true和destructiveHint=false，描述中“不会修改Revit”与注释一致，但未添加额外行为细节（如性能、权限要求或错误条件）。描述列出了返回字段，这超过注释，但主要披露已经由注释承担，故评为3。

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?

描述为单句，直接列出功能、返回内容和副作用（无修改），信息密度高，无冗余词。结构紧凑，重点前置。

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?

对于只有一个参数且具有丰富注释的只读工具，描述足够完整：提供了返回字段列表，注释覆盖了副作用和幂等性。虽然未说明输出格式，因为没有输出模式，但列出的字段已满足调用前了解所需。轻微扣分是因为未提及任何潜在限制（如批处理大小或时间影响），但整体不影响调用。

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?

参数batch_id在模式中已有完整描述（“创建独立管片时使用的批次标识”）和正则约束，schema描述覆盖率为100%。描述未添加超出模式的语义信息，因此基线为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?

描述以具体动词“反查”开头，明确目标是“每块独立管片的身份、族版本、位置、定向、包围盒和体积”，并说明不会修改Revit。这清晰区分了与兄弟工具如inspect_tunnel_batch（针对隧道批次而非管片批次）和preview_tunnel_segments（可能为预览而非反查身份）。

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?

描述隐含了用途（按批次标识检查管片信息），但未明确说明何时应使用此工具而非兄弟工具，也未提供排除条件或使用场景。与其他工具的区别仅通过名称和“独立管片”一词暗示，没有显式指引。

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