thong_ke_phong

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the result shape (per-floor aggregation and an 'error rooms' bucket), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not cover the optional 'revit' parameter's effect or any filtering scope.

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 semicolon-delimited line that front-loads the entity being listed and then the fields and aggregations. Nothing is padded, though the terse telegraphed style leaves little room for the routing information an agent actually needs.

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 the description is not obliged to spell out return values, and its enumeration of fields is a reasonable complement. The remaining gaps — what 'revit' does and how this tool differs from its many statistics siblings — are what keep it at merely adequate for a read-only reporting tool.

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' is never mentioned in the description, so an agent has no explanation of what it selects (model connection? project file?). With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, this falls below the baseline-3 case that applies when the schema does the work.

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 concrete domain resource and enumerates what the result contains: room number, name, floor, area (m2), perimeter (m), plus per-floor totals and error rooms. It is a specific 'what it produces' statement rather than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like thong_ke_cua or khoi_luong_tuong, which are similarly shaped statistics tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a different breakdown. The presence of near-identical siblings (thong_ke_cua, dem_theo_hang_muc) makes this omission costly, since nothing in the text tells an agent which statistics tool to pick.

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