get_representation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not tessellate geometry, and it specifies the return fields (representation type, identifier, items with IfcMappedItem details including mapping_target_is_identity and mapping_target_matrix). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what a minimal description would provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returns, then a specific use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description gives a solid overview of what the tool returns and its purpose. It is reasonably complete for a two-parameter read-like operation, though it does not explicitly cover potential limitations or edge cases.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the parameters model_id or global_id at all. It only refers to 'an element' without clarifying the parameter meanings. The agent must infer from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'representation structure of an element without tessellating geometry'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the non-tessellating aspect and the specific return details (IfcMappedItem details).

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 clear use case: 'Use to detect baked rotations before geometry extraction.' This gives context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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