Iniciar verificacao em lote

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

Given annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the key constraint that Solibri must be closed before invocation, which is not inferable from annotations. It also discloses that it exports files and returns a jobId, aligning with the open-world side effects. 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 a single, tightly worded paragraph that front-loads the primary action and essential outputs, then immediately gives the follow-up instruction and the key prerequisite. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the overall workflow, return value (jobId), and how to track progress. It lacks explicit error handling or timeout notes, but the schema fully documents parameter details, and the async nature is implied by the status tool reference. Adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the main output types (BCF, report, project) which maps to several parameters, but it doesn't add details beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters like bcfVersion, autocomment, or createPresentation. It offers minimal additional semantic value.

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 tool's purpose: it opens Solibri in Autorun mode to load IFCs, apply rulesets, run checking, and export BCF, report, and project. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it returns a jobId to follow with solibri_autorun_status, making its role as the batch-start entry point explicit.

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?

It provides a critical usage precondition (Solibri must be closed) and instructs the agent to monitor progress with solibri_autorun_status, indicating this is the first step of a batch workflow. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context of being the autorun starter makes its usage clear.

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