List BIM View Folders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds pagination behavior and return format details (JSON array, pagination metadata). This adds value but is not extensive; no contradictions 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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, usage scenarios, return format, and technical details. No redundant information. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains pagination and required parameters but does not describe the structure of the returned BIM records (fields, metadata shape). For a listing tool without output schema, more detail on return fields would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description highlights project_id as required and mentions page and per_page for pagination, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Filter parameters are not discussed in the description. 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 clearly states it lists BIM View Folders for a specified project. The verb 'Lists' is specific and the resource is named. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_bim_files or list_bim_models, as the description uses the general term 'BIM records' instead of specifying 'BIM View Folders'.

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 context: 'Use this to enumerate BIM records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It gives clear scenarios but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. This is good guidance but not exhaustive.

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