Analizar Modelo Bim Ifc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is partly covered; the description adds concrete behavioral context: it does not modify the original IFC file and emits interactive progress to FastMCP. That is real value beyond the structured hints, though it stops short of noting failure modes (corrupt/unsupported IFC) or performance considerations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and organized under clear headers (Cuándo usar, Comportamiento), which aids scanning. Slightly verbose in enumerating the IFC entity types, but every clause carries information useful for routing.

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 a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema (so return values need no prose), and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what it extracts, when to pick it, and its side-effect profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single ifc_path parameter is fully documented there (absolute/relative path, .ifc/IFC2X3/IFC4). The description adds no format or path-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (abre y analiza) plus resource (modelo BIM IFC), and enumerates exactly what it extracts (IfcSpace, IfcWall, IfcWindow/IfcDoor) and the downstream purpose (integración en CE3X). An agent can distinguish it from other siblings without opening the schema.

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 'Cuándo usar' block explicitly names the trigger condition (having the 3D BIM model from Revit, Archicad, Allplan, CYPE) and names the alternative for the opposite case ('analizar_plano_arquitectura_pdf' for 2D plans/PDF). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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