open IFC viewer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses non-behaviors (does not load files, does not alter selection/isolation), states the output is a stable URL, and gives post-return instructions. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a zero-parameter 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 about 100 words but every sentence adds value: purpose, non-goal clarification, usage instructions for the returned URL, sibling references, and an explicit prohibition. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains structured without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers its function, limitations, and integration with sibling tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how to proceed after invocation, making it complete for its complexity.

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 schema is empty. The baseline for zero params is 4, and there is no need for the description to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but none is required.

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 opens/shows the local IFC viewer and returns its stable viewer URL. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it does not load IFC files or change selection/isolation state, and references show-ifc-file and set-bcf-view for those purposes.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this tool for opening the viewer, use show-ifc-file to display IFC files, use set-bcf-view to apply BCF viewpoints. It also instructs what to do with the returned URL and warns against browser automation for clicking/selecting, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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