ifcx_export_preview_gltf

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It states 'preview artifact' implying a simplified export, but does not disclose what happens if no draft mesh exists, error handling, or side effects. The verb 'Export' suggests a write operation, but no confirmation or return value is described.

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 very short (one phrase), which saves tokens but at the cost of necessary details. It is not too verbose, but it omits critical information that could be added without becoming overly long.

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 has no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter details. An agent would need additional context to use this tool effectively.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not mention sessionId or outputDir, leaving their purpose, constraints, and defaults unspecified. The agent must infer from names.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'simple glTF preview artifact' from 'draft mesh geometry'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ifcx_export_preview_threejs by specifying the format (glTF).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ifcx_export_preview_threejs). No prerequisites or limitations mentioned. The agent is left without context for decision-making.

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