ifcx_query_nodes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Query'), but does not explicitly state read-only status, permissions, rate limits, or return format. Minimal disclosure of behavioral traits.

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, short and to the point, but comma-separated list of filter options is not optimally structured. Could benefit from better readability or formatting. Acceptable but not excellent.

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 high complexity (12 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not define 'composed IFCX ECS nodes', explain query behavior (e.g., intersection vs union of filters), or describe return values. Insufficient for effective agent usage.

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?

Input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only lists broad filter categories (class, attribute, etc.) but does not explain critical parameters like sessionId, stackId, limit, or how filters combine. Fails to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states the tool queries composed IFCX ECS nodes using various filters (class, attribute, property, material, classification, text). It distinguishes from sibling query tools like ifcx_query_relationships and ifcx_query_spatial_path. However, the term 'composed IFCX ECS nodes' could be more precise.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools offer different query types, but without differentiation, the agent lacks decision-making information.

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