export_ifc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output content, optional roof behavior, default file path, and overwrite/path behavior via reference to export_schedule. However, it does not explain failure conditions, required document state, or what happens when overwrite is false or true beyond that reference.

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 compact and efficiently front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second gives the default path, and the third points to shared rules. Every clause adds relevant information without redundancy.

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 9-parameter export tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the main output, contents, default path, and reuse of export_schedule's rules, but it leaves several parameters and their units/effects underspecified, and relies on an external sibling definition for overwrite behavior.

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 partially explains roof, path, and overwrite behavior. Parameters such as overhang, roof_pitch, wall_height, slab_thickness, author, and project_name are left to their schema titles and defaults, with no units or clarifying semantics.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Export the building to an IFC4 file (BIM)'. It adds a detailed, meaningful list of what is included, which distinguishes it from other export tools in the sibling set like export_svg, export_pdf, and export_schedule.

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 IFC4/BIM framing makes the intended use unmistakable, and the reference to 'path rules and overwrite as export_schedule' connects it to a sibling export tool's conventions. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or prefer a different export tool, but the format and content make the use case clear.

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