compute_surface_loss

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that the tool writes a file (`<stem>_surface_loss.json` with schema `compute_surface_loss`), which is an important behavioral trait. However, it omits details like file path derivation, overwriting behavior (though the `overwrite` parameter implies it), or error handling for invalid IFC input.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that lead with the primary action and outcome. It includes the critical output artifact and schema name without any fluff or redundancy, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 that the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the computation purpose, the output file name, and the schema. Minor gaps such as the meaning of `<stem>` and the lack of comparison to sibling tools prevent a perfect score, but for a simple tool, this is sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters: `ifc_path` is clearly explained as the path to the IFC model and `overwrite` as overwriting existing JSON. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 starts with a specific action verb 'Calcule' and identifies the exact resource: 'm² perdus par pièce (empiètement murs/poteaux)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_envelope_surfaces or check_space_boundaries, which focus on different aspects of space analysis.

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?

Usage context is implied by the calculation semantics, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance such as 'for other surface analyses, use...', which leaves an agent to infer applicability from the purpose alone.

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