get_ifc_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the listed output suggests a non-destructive analysis. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, error handling, or whether the operation leaves any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without redundancy. However, it omits important parameter guidance, but for what it does include, it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete in context: it fails to explain the purpose and effect of detail_level, does not differentiate the tool from siblings, and lacks usage guidance. Given the moderate complexity and multiple sibling tools, more contextual detail is needed for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, leaving the parameters ifc_path and detail_level completely unexplained. The description does not compensate by describing expected input formats, the meaning of detail_level, or how parameters affect the output. This is a critical gap for effective tool invocation.

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 that the tool retrieves comprehensive IFC model statistics and lists specific categories (project name, schema, elements, class distribution, spatial structure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on element queries, properties, spaces, validation, comparison, conversion, or quantities.

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 for obtaining high-level statistics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_ifc_elements or extract_ifc_quantities. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are mentioned.

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