verify_ifc_export_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a dependency (Tapir add-on) but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the add-on is missing, or what output it produces. This is a significant gap for a QA tool.

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 core purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks critical context: the 'port' parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of failure conditions, side effects, or what specifically constitutes 'IFC export readiness'. The tool's simplicity is mitigated by the parameter gap and missing behavioral details.

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 one parameter ('port') with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what 'port' means or how to use it.

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's function: 'Run only the IFC-related QA rules to check IFC export readiness.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and identifies a distinct resource/scope (IFC-related QA rules) with a clear purpose. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'run_rule' and 'audit_delivery_readiness'.

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 usage context by specifying 'only the IFC-related QA rules' and notes a prerequisite ('Requires the Tapir add-on for IFC data'). This implies when to use the tool (when IFC export readiness is needed) and gives a condition, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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