Abrir modelo IFC

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

Annotations already cover the mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open world interaction (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context that the file comes from the workspace and goes to the current project, but it does not disclose any further side effects (e.g., handling of existing models, file validation, or error scenarios). This is consistent with annotations but adds limited extra value.

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 omits any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 that the annotations and schema cover mutation, open world, and both parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explicitly mention potential conflicts (e.g., if a model with the same name already exists) or prerequisite conditions beyond the implicit 'Solibri aberto'. It could be more explicit about expected behavior when the file cannot be found or when Solibri is not open.

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%: both 'file' and 'name' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional information about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither enriches nor contradicts the schema.

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 the action clearly: 'Envia um arquivo IFC do workspace para o Solibri aberto e o adiciona ao projeto atual' (sends an IFC file from workspace to open Solibri and adds it to the current project). It specifies the resource (IFC file) and the action (add to project), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like solibri_update_model or solibri_run_checking, so it loses a point for not explicitly distinguishing itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning when it is appropriate (e.g., for adding a new model) or when not to use it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided.

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