export_ifc

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool creates an IFC file, effectively a write/mutation operation, and mentions logging context. It lacks details on potential side effects or permissions required, but for a file export tool, the behavior is well explained.

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 concise: three short paragraphs with a clear first line front-loading the purpose. No fluff; every sentence adds useful information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, options, and context argument. It is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so by listing each argument with its meaning, default values, and constraints (e.g., file_path must end in .ifc). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Export the Revit model to IFC format.' It specifies the output format and offers filtering options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'export_document' or 'export_room_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 explains when to use the optional view filter and IFC version selection, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an AI agent to make an informed choice.

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