rhino_export_ifc

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write operation. The description adds that it exports to IFC files, but does not detail side effects on the document or file system beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction.

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 sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the primary action and supported formats. It could include a bit more context (e.g., mention that it writes to a file), but it is efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core functionality and schema variants. It does not mention prerequisites like requiring an active document, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., path, doc_id, schema_version). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('active document or a subset'), and clearly specifies the target formats (IFC2x3, IFC4, IFC4x3 with a bridge-only constraint). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like rhino_export_obj or rhino_export_stl.

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 IFC export but does not explicitly state when to choose this over other export tools or provide prerequisites. The 'bridge only' note for IFC4x3 is a helpful constraint, but overall guidance is minimal.

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