get_element_by_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about the label format and states that the response matches get_element_by_id, but it does not describe error behavior (e.g., label not found) or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key, and the second sentence provides a practical use case. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 description covers purpose, label format, and use case, and references get_element_by_id for return semantics. Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, this is mostly complete, though error behavior and response structure rely on sibling tool awareness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains entity_label as an integer IFC label (#NNN from STEP file), but model_id is not described beyond its name. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other to inference.

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 looks up an element by its IFC entity label (#NNN from the STEP file). It distinguishes from get_element_by_id by noting it returns the same response via a different key, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 a concrete use case (cross-referencing import log output) and implies that get_element_by_id is the alternative when you have an ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list other alternative lookup tools.

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