list_ifc_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists entities and can filter by selection, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with null entity_type. The description is minimal and lacks depth for a tool with parameters.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an Args section detailing each parameter with brief explanations, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and doesn't detail the return format beyond 'A JSON-formatted string,' which is insufficient without an output schema. For a listing tool with filtering options, more behavioral transparency would be beneficial.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains all three parameters: entity_type ('Type of IFC entity to list'), limit ('Maximum number of entities to return'), and selected_only ('If True, only return information about selected objects'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantic context for each parameter.

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's purpose: 'List IFC entities of a specific type' with filtering options. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('IFC entities'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_selected_ifc_entities' by mentioning selection filtering as an option rather than the primary function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like 'get_ifc_spatial_structure' or 'get_ifc_total_structure'.

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 context by mentioning 'Can be filtered to only include objects currently selected in the Blender UI,' which suggests when to use the selected_only parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like 'get_selected_ifc_entities' or other get_ifc_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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