parse_pdf_foundation_plan

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

The annotations mark this as destructive and not read-only, but the description only says it 'Extracts' elements, giving no warning that it may create, modify, or delete anything. It adds useful context about vector PDFs and Revit mm coordinates, but omits the destructive behavior and calibration requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity leaves major gaps for a tool with 10 parameters and destructive semantics.

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 names the extracted elements and units, but it is not complete enough for a complex 10-parameter destructive tool. It omits critical parameter meanings, calibration expectations, and side-effect disclosure, even though the output schema can cover return values.

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?

There are 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify pdf_path, page_number, the grid calibration point parameters, the drawing-area bounding box, or the default thickness parameters.

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 gives a specific verb, 'Extracts', and names the exact foundation elements, source type, and coordinate unit. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling parse_pdf_structural_plan.

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 only states the tool's function. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over parse_pdf_structural_plan or the batch creation tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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