check_space_boundaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must self-disclose behaviors. It explicitly mentions the side effect of writing a JSON file (`<stem>_boundaries.json`), which is a key behavioral trait. It could additionally mention overwrite behavior or valid IFC requirements, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the output file detail. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 is moderately complex (IFC processing, file output) but the description, combined with a fully documented schema and an output schema, provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention the purpose of the boundary JSON or prerequisites, but the current level is adequate.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.

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: 'Détecte les limites manquantes entre pièces adjacentes' (detects missing boundaries between adjacent spaces). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on boundary detection, and it also names the output file and schema.

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 analyzing IFC space boundaries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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