debim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether the file at output_ifc_path is created, overwritten, or requires an existing directory, nor anything about error handling or permissions. It also gives no indication of how a malformed manifest is reported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that states input and output crisply. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and parameter detail is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool that writes an artifact with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: manifest format expectations, overwrite behavior, and where this fits relative to debim_validate.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies what the parameters are. It never explains the expected YAML manifest structure, required manifest keys, path format, or whether the output path must exist — the two most consequential inputs for getting a call right.

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 gives a specific verb ("Compile") and both the input resource ("declarative BIM YAML manifest") and the output artifact ("standard IFC4 building model"), so the transformation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like debim_validate or debim_generate_viewer, which also operate on the same BIM artifacts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus debim_validate (validate a manifest) or the cost/QTO tools, and no stated prerequisites such as validating the manifest first. The agent must infer the workflow ordering entirely from the tool names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the fallback behavior when prices_yaml is omitted and the optional CSV export, but says nothing about file overwrite semantics for export_csv_path, permissions, or other side effects of a tool that can write output.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with the core purpose stated first and no filler. Efficient, though the trailing export sentence is a minor detail that could be folded in.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the main fallback and export behaviors. However, for a tool that can write files with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the absence of manifest_yaml explanation and export side-effect details leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the prices_yaml omission case and the purpose of export_csv_path, but leaves manifest_yaml (the only required parameter) entirely unexplained, so coverage is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate full Bill of Quantities (BOQ) and cost estimation') and clarifies the mechanism ('Matches QTO quantities against unit material and labor prices'), which implicitly distinguishes it from debim_qto. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling debim_cost_template.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The only conditional advice is 'If prices_yaml is omitted, auto-generates a benchmark template,' which is a behavior rather than a usage rule, and the related debim_cost_template sibling is never mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral traits about the output — that it is "minimal" and filtered to actively-used materials — but says nothing about permissions, file-writing behavior, or determinism. It adds some value beyond structured fields but leaves the operational profile thin.

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?

A tight two-line statement with the verb and deliverable front-loaded and no filler. Only the awkward line break interrupts otherwise clean structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no guidance on how this template relates to the downstream debim_cost workflow, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% for the single required parameter manifest_yaml, and the description never mentions or explains it. The agent must guess that the manifest represents the building model input. With coverage this low, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ("Generate") and resource ("project-scoped price catalog YAML template"), and scopes it precisely to materials/items actively used by the building model. This differentiates it reasonably from siblings like debim_cost, though it never explicitly names which sibling it complements.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The scoping clause ("based only on materials actively used") implies it should be run against a live model, but the agent must infer when this template is the right call versus debim_cost or debim_qto.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output artifact's nature (standalone, zero-dependency, interactive), but says nothing about writing/overwriting the file at output_html_path, failure modes, or auth needs.

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?

A single tight sentence with the capability front-loaded and feature list following. No waste, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the feature list covers what the generated viewer contains. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the manifest input contract and file-writing behavior unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not: neither manifest_yaml's expected format/source nor output_html_path's path semantics (absolute? overwrite?) are explained. Only the bare parameter names in the schema give any clue.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (standalone interactive 3D HTML viewer) and enumerates the delivered features (OrbitControls, X-Ray, Section Cut, Layer Explorer). It is clearly distinct from validate/qto/cost/compile siblings, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools, nor prerequisites such as whether the manifest must first pass debim_validate. The agent must infer that a validated manifest is the expected input.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It claims deterministic output and lists result units, which is useful, but says nothing about required input validity, failure modes, permissions, or whether output depends on a prior validation step.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, followed by a compact enumeration of outputs. No filler sentences, though the output listing is partially redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated (they are, harmlessly). However, for a single-param tool whose only input is an undocumented manifest, the description leaves the agent without enough context on input requirements or workflow position.

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% and the single parameter manifest_yaml is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the manifest is, what format/structure it expects, or where it comes from, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate Quantitative Take-Off (QTO) material quantities deterministically', and enumerates the exact quantities produced. It is clearly distinct in substance from siblings like debim_cost, debim_validate, and debim_compile_ifc, though it never names them explicitly to route the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether the manifest must first pass debim_validate), and no mention of alternatives such as debim_cost. The agent is left to infer the position of this tool in the workflow.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the external data source (Overpass API), hinting at network dependency, but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, where the generated manifest YAML is written, or whether the operation is destructive/overwriting. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishing purpose and output, followed by a compact Args block that adds real value. Slightly docstring-flavored but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema covers the return shape, and all params are explained, but for a tool with zero annotations that performs external network fetches and generates a file artifact, the description should say where the manifest is written and what error conditions look like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, yet the description documents all three parameters meaningfully — critically, it gives the bbox element ORDER [min_lat, min_lon, max_lat, max_lon], which the schema's bare number array does not convey, and explains crs_epsg as a metric UTM code with the Thailand 32647 default. It omits what happens when both or neither of bbox/geojson_str are supplied, which is the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb (ingest), the source (OpenStreetMap Overpass API bounding box or GeoJSON), and the concrete output artifact (native .debim urban manifest YAML). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like debim_compile_ifc, debim_qto, and debim_validate.

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 phrase 'bounding box or GeoJSON string' implies two alternative input modes, but the description never states whether they are mutually exclusive, that at least one is required (all params optional, zero required), or when a user should prefer one over the other. No when-not guidance and no mention of siblings as alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates what is checked, which is genuine behavioral content, but it omits whether the operation is purely read-only, whether a failing manifest throws or returns structured errors, and whether validation has side effects. Partial coverage only.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the check list immediately after. No filler, though the check enumeration could be slightly condensed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is low-complexity with one parameter. However, for a validation gate in a six-tool pipeline, the absence of any guidance on ordering relative to debim_compile_ifc leaves an agent guessing.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema alone contributes nothing. The description compensates by establishing that the input is a YAML manifest string, but adds no syntax expectations, size limits, or format constraints beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (Validate) and resource (declarative BIM manifest YAML string), and enumerates the checks performed (schema syntax, grid consistency, storey heights, material references). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like debim_compile_ifc, though it never names them explicitly.

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 says nothing about when to call this versus debim_compile_ifc or debim_qto, nor whether validation is a prerequisite before compiling. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given; usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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