List BIM Models

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by detailing pagination ('page and per_page control pagination'), the return format ('Returns a JSON array of BIM models'), and error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, and 404'). While annotations cover safety hints (readOnly, idempotent, destructive), the error and pagination details are extra behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage, return format, pagination, read-only guarantee, error behavior, and API location. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the essential context: return format (JSON array), pagination semantics ('response reports how many pages remain'), error payloads, and read-only nature. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates that project_id is required and mentions pagination, which the schema already covers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Lists BIM Models associated with the specified Project.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools by explaining it is for discovering models or looking up an id before calling other tools, which sets it apart from show, create, update, and delete BIM model tools.

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 explicitly says to 'Use this to discover BIM models or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also notes required parameters and that the operation is read-only, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., show_bim_model) for when an id is already known.

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