extract_ifc_quantities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions output formats but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles missing files, performance implications, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Extract quantity takeoffs') and then specifies the relevant details (types and formats). Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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?

While an output schema exists (which may cover return values), the description lacks essential context for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions. It does not explain how storey filtering works, what quantity types are available, or how the output format parameter affects results. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings. It fails to mention ifc_path, storey, output_format, or quantity_type, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. The only hint is the output format list, which loosely maps to output_format but is not explicit.

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 tool extracts quantity takeoffs (lengths, areas, volumes, counts) and lists output formats (markdown, CSV, JSON). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_ifc_elements, get_ifc_statistics, and get_element_properties, which focus on other aspects of IFC data.

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 implies usage when quantity takeoffs are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself offers no direct comparison or selection guidance.

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