clear IFC viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation removes all loaded files and viewpoint state, keeps the same stable viewer URL, and does not close the browser tab. These are meaningful behavioral traits that go beyond the tool's name, though it does not address reversibility or potential side effects like confirmation prompts, which are not critical for a clearing operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that directly communicate the action, its scope, and the recommended next step. There is no wasted phrasing; each clause adds value. The structure front-loads the primary function and then adds relevant context.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It clearly explains what state is cleared, what remains unchanged, and how to proceed with a fresh model. The mention of show-ifc-file provides essential workflow context, making the tool's place in the larger process clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. According to the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The description appropriately focuses on the action and outcome.

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 with a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('already-open local IFC viewer'), and precisely describes what it does: removing all loaded IFC files and BCF viewpoint state. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it keeps the same stable viewer URL and does not close the browser tab, which distinguishes it from open-ifc-viewer and show-ifc-file.

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 clear context for when to use (already-open viewer) and explicitly directs the next step: 'Use show-ifc-file after this to load a fresh IFC model.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other siblings like open-ifc-viewer or set-bcf-view, though the primary use case is well conveyed.

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