load_ifc_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core action (loading an IFC file) and the return value, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., memory usage, time to load), error behavior, or what 'load' entails beyond returning an ID. This is minimal but adequate for a simple loader.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the return value and that it is intended for subsequent queries, which covers essential usage context. However, it lacks any detail about error handling or the nature of the file path, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 schema has only one parameter 'path' with no description, and the description merely says 'from the given path,' adding no additional meaning. It does not specify path format, valid file extensions, or whether it is a local path, URL, etc. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but largely restates the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Load an IFC file from the given path.' This directly states the tool's function and clearly distinguishes it from sibling query tools and the unload tool. The return value is also specified, making the purpose 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 phrase 'Returns model_id for subsequent queries' implies that this tool is a prerequisite for using the query tools, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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