list_ifc_spaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm the lack of side effects or mention prerequisites such as valid IFC file or error behavior. It adds the storey filter context but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 states the action, the resource, and the optional filter. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core functionality and the storey filter, and the output schema handles return values. It does not mention alternatives, but that is more relevant to usage guidelines.

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 no descriptions for the two parameters. The description clarifies that 'storey' is an optional filter, adding meaning beyond the schema. 'ifc_path' is self-explanatory from its name and schema, so the description covers the key parameter semantics well.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'spaces/rooms in the IFC model'. It also mentions the optional storey filter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_ifc_elements or extract_ifc_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 gives clear context (listing spaces/rooms) but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It is implied that this is the tool for space/room listing, but it does not say when to prefer it over other IFC query tools.

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