Exportar BCF

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific side effect of creating a BCF file in the workspace, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., no model open, file overwriting), though these are partially implied by the schema. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and output. There is no filler or redundant detail; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple export tool with well-documented parameters, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the prerequisite of an open Solibri model ('aberto') and specifies the output path via the output parameter. However, it lacks information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided. Overall, it covers the essential calling context.

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%, with all three parameters (scope, output, version) having meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Exporta'), the resource ('as issues do Solibri aberto'), and the output ('arquivo BCF dentro do workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like solibri_read_bcf and solibri_update_model, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to export issues to a BCF file, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., solibri_read_bcf) or any conditions/exclusions. The sibling list exists but is not referenced in the description, so the agent must infer usage context.

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