convert_ifc_to_gltf

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states the core transformation and the optional Draco compression, which gives some insight into output. However, it omits details about file writes, overwrite behavior, or the effect of the max_elements parameter, leaving safety-relevant behavior unclear.

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, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded verb. Every word contributes to clarifying the operation and its optional compression feature, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Given there are 4 parameters including a non-obvious max_elements limit, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It explains the conversion operation but leaves the parameters' semantics and behavioral side-effects unaddressed, despite having an output schema to cover return values.

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 schema is entirely undocumented in the description; the phrase 'optionally with Draco compression' maps only to the 'compress' parameter. The required 'ifc_path' and the 'output_path' and 'max_elements' parameters are not explained in any way, and since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for that gap.

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 identifies the action ('Convert'), the input resource ('an IFC model'), the output format ('glTF/GLB'), and the intended use case ('for web visualization'). It is distinct from sibling tools that query or analyze IFC data rather than perform format conversion.

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?

The description provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when a glTF/GLB version of an IFC model is needed for web visualization. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose alone differentiates it from the query/analysis siblings.

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