khoi_luong_ket_cau

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description is not required to restate it. The description does add that results are grouped by material and type, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about project/level scope or connectivity requirements.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the output (thể tích m3) followed by the subject scope. Every clause earns its place, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and read-only annotations cover risk. However, for a quantity take-off tool the description leaves unclear what scope is measured (whole model vs. selection vs. level), what the undocumented 'revit' argument does, and whether a prior connection check (kiem_tra_ket_noi) is required.

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% and the single parameter 'revit' has no title description, type detail, or default explanation. The description never mentions this parameter, so an agent gets no guidance on what value to pass or what omitting it (null default) does.

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 names a specific computation (volume in m3) and enumerates the exact structural elements covered: cột, dầm, móng. This implicitly separates it from the sibling volume tools (khoi_luong_tuong for walls, khoi_luong_san for floors), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the element scope: an agent can infer this is the tool for structural (column/beam/foundation) quantities rather than walls or slabs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. an active Revit connection), and no routing guidance toward or away from siblings.

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