show IFC file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the viewer must already be open, that calls can repeat and add files, and that it returns a stable viewer URL to use afterward. It does not mention potential failure modes or file size limits, but the key behavioral traits are clear.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: it states the action, the accepted inputs, the usage scope, the repeated-call behavior, the return value, and cross-references to sibling tools. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and entirely free of fluff.

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 moderate complexity, a single parameter, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value (stable viewer URL), how to use the result, and how it fits into the workflow with the sibling tools, leaving no necessary context missing.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context by explicitly tying the file_path to 'run Python saved_files' generated URLs and listing the supported IFC formats, going slightly beyond the schema text.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Show one IFC file in the already-open local IFC viewer.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that open-ifc-viewer is for opening the viewer and set-bcf-view is for applying BCF viewpoints.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for IFC model display only') and names alternatives and complementary tools (open-ifc-viewer, set-bcf-view). It also clarifies that repeated calls add multiple files, which is a key usage constraint not otherwise inferable.

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