列出盾构隧道管片目录

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

The description explicitly states 'will not modify Revit', which reinforces the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but it does not contradict them. It adds specificity about what is listed (layouts, roles, angles, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination, sorting, or performance characteristics. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, this description adds modest value.

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 verb and resource, then lists the categories, and closes with the read-only guarantee. There is no redundant or extraneous wording; every part earns its place.

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 simple, parameter-less listing tool, the description is largely complete. It names the categories of data returned, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not describe the output format (e.g., flat list vs. nested structure), but given there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, this is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately refrains from doing so. Per the guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'list' and the resource 'shield tunnel segment catalog', and enumerates the specific categories it covers (layouts, roles, angles, family content configurations and versions). It even notes it will not modify Revit, which reinforces its read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like preview_tunnel_segments or inspect_tunnel_segment_batch, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, nor does it state conditions under which this tool should be preferred (e.g., 'Use this before creating segments to list available configurations'). The only usage hint is the read-only note, which is behavioral, not directional.

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