extract_envelope_surfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly names the two output files (`<stem>_envelope.json` and `<stem>_enveloppe.xlsx`) and notes the special I3F format, which is key behavioral information beyond the schema. It doesn't detail overwrite or failure modes, but the file-writing behavior is well 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 tightly written sentences: the first states the calculation scope, the second specifies the two output files and the formatting requirement. No filler or redundancy, and the key verb is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate: it covers purpose, outputs, and downstream integration. It could mention a potential dependency on earlier checks (like check_space_boundaries), but that's not essential for basic invocation.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains ifc_path, seuil_3f, and overwrite. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, keeping this at the baseline.

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 begins with 'Calcule les surfaces d'enveloppe' – a specific verb (calculates) and resource (envelope surfaces), listing categories (façades, menuiseries, SHAB, ratio). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_space_inventory or check_space_boundaries.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the output xlsx is 'au format attendu par le pack I3F' and explicitly directs the user to pass it as 'enveloppe_xlsx' to 'generate_avp_i3f_pack'. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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