ifcx_write_tiered

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), permissions required, or error conditions. The word 'write' implies mutation but lacks specifics.

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 (five words), but this brevity omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than truly concise. Every word should earn its place; here, key details are missing.

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 complexity of the tool (likely a file write operation) and the large set of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain output, side effects, or differentiation, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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 two parameters (sessionId, outputDir) with no descriptions. The tool description does not clarify their meaning, format, or constraints, despite 0% schema coverage.

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 states it writes 'index.ifcx + NDJSON tables,' which is a specific resource, but does not explain what these are or how this tool differs from siblings like ifcx_write_alpha or ifcx_export_tiered. The purpose is vague and relies on the user inferring meaning from the name.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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