ifcx_spatial_summary

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified, lacking necessary details. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits critical information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain the summary contents, prerequisites, or return format.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention or explain the parameters 'sessionId' and 'stackId'. The description adds no semantic value for parameter understanding.

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 tool builds a 'simple bounds and collision summary for stage mesh geometry', which is specific and differentiates it from siblings like ifcx_detect_geometry_collisions or ifcx_build_spatial_index.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ifcx_detect_geometry_collisions or ifcx_query_nodes. The description lacks any context about preferred scenarios.

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