List BIM File Extractions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a paginated JSON array, includes error codes and types when extractions fail, and mentions response metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides a well-structured error code table. While slightly lengthy, the table is useful and the information is logically organized. Every sentence adds value, but could be trimmed slightly.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should cover the response structure more thoroughly. It mentions 'paginated JSON array' and 'paginated metadata', but lacks details on the fields in the array (e.g., id, status, errors). It also does not mention the HTTP method (GET) or authentication requirements, though these might be inferred from the endpoint path.

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 100%; each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The description adds minor value by explaining that 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination and that the response includes pagination metadata, but does not further clarify the filters or mandatory nature of project_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 the purpose: 'Return a list of all BIM File Extractions' with a specific verb and resource. It adds context about error handling and pagination, but does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools like list_bim_files or list_bim_models.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate BIM records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It mentions required parameters (project_id) and pagination controls. However, it does not describe when not to use this tool or explicitly compare with alternatives.

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