ifcx_capabilities

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'report installed capabilities', implying no side effects, but fails to describe what the report contains (e.g., versions, features), potential performance impact, or authorization needs. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and efficient. Every word contributes meaning. No extraneous content.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter details, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, typical use cases, or how it fits among many sibling tools. An agent would lack information to effectively interpret the output.

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 100% schema coverage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed), but it clarifies the tool's nature as a capability report, which is sufficient.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'report' with clear resource 'installed IFCX/IFClite adapter capabilities'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (create, export, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance is provided. The tool's context as a informational report is implied by the lack of parameters and passive verb, but alternatives among siblings are not mentioned. Adequate but lacking precise usage context.

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