ifcx_export_ifc5_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'sanitized' and 'bridge path' but does not explain what sanitization entails (e.g., removed data, transformations), side effects, or auth requirements. The term 'IFClite' is jargon, and the response format is unspecified.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly cryptic and under-specified. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, earning a middle score rather than high.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for a 3-parameter export tool. It does not cover what the function returns, how outputPath relates to the export, or what 'standalone' means, leaving major gaps for the agent.

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 0%, meaning no parameter documentation in the schema. The description fails to explain the three parameters: sessionId, outputPath, and standalone. Without any explanation of what these parameters do or how they affect the export, the agent cannot use the tool correctly.

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 action (export), the resource (sanitized IFC5/IFCX alpha JSON), and the method (through IFClite bridge path), which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like ifcx_export_alpha (likely without sanitization) and ifcx_export_ifc_step (STEP format). However, it does not explain what 'sanitized' means, limiting full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ifcx_export_alpha or ifcx_export_ifc_step. It does not mention prerequisites, workflow context, or limitations, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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