tqs_building_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using the verb 'Read'. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool outputs JSON, the specific data categories included, and the two acceptable path forms. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but for a read-only tool this is reasonably transparent.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main action, lists the output contents, and finishes with the required input. Every clause contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, the required 'building_path' parameter, and the output content outline. However, the optional 'sections' parameter is left undefined, and with no output schema, the description does not fully compensate for that missing schema documentation. It is adequate but has a clear gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'building_path' parameter ('Pass a building folder or a path to EDIFICIO.DAT'), but the 'sections' parameter is completely unexplained. With an optional parameter that defaults to null, leaving it undocumented is a significant gap.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('TQS building'), and enumerates specific output contents (project metadata, analysis model, floors, concrete strengths, covers, load cases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tqs_building_edit and tqs_dwg_read.

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 explains the input format ('Pass a building folder or a path to EDIFICIO.DAT'), which is actionable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tqs_building_edit or tqs_list_buildings, so it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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