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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important side effect: bo_sung_qto=True writes a copy '<tên>_BoSungQTO.ifc' into the output folder and runs the takeoff on that copy. It does not cover overwrite behavior, runtime cost of geometric measurement, or permissions, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Purpose and output filename are front-loaded, the Revit prerequisite follows, then the fallback flag, then the Args block. Slightly redundant in restating ifc_path and bo_sung_qto after the prose already covered them, but there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description instead covers inputs, the prerequisite, and the fallback workflow. Remaining gaps are minor: where the output folder is defined and whether prior outputs are overwritten.

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 must compensate, and it does: every one of the five parameters is documented, including allowed value sets for discipline (KT/KC/MEP/ALL) and stage (TKCS/TKKT/TKTC/AS-BUILT) that the schema does not enumerate. It stops short of explaining how discipline/stage alter the takeoff output.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (extract QTO from IFC via BaseQuantities Psets) and names the produced artifact (IFC_QTO_*.xlsx). What's missing is any explicit contrast with the kiem_tra_*/tong_hop_audit siblings, though the resource difference is self-evident.

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?

It states a concrete precondition (IFC exported from Revit must have 'Export base quantities' enabled) and gives an explicit trigger for the fallback path: when IFC yields zero BaseQuantities values, set bo_sung_qto=True. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to the sibling check tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: it generates an .ids file, scores with ifctester, and reports element coverage rather than just a pass percentage. It omits the side effect of where/whether the generated .ids is persisted, required permissions, and how failures or missing EIR data are handled.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and pipeline (EIR -> .ids -> ifctester) before a compact args block; almost every line carries information. The coverage-reporting clause is slightly elliptical but not padded.

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?

For a four-parameter validation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, pipeline, and all parameter meanings, plus an extra note on coverage reporting the schema cannot express. The main remaining gap is the undisclosed write side effect of emitting an .ids file.

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% and all parameters carry only bare titles, so the description must compensate, and it does: ifc_path is defined as a full path, discipline as KT/KC/MEP/ALL, stage as TKCS/TKKT/TKTC/AS-BUILT, and project is described as auto-detected when left empty. These enum values and the auto-detect semantics are unavailable anywhere in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: validates an IFC model against buildingSMART IDS via ifctester, auto-generating the .ids from EIR requirements by discipline and stage. That is clearly distinct from siblings like kiem_tra_lod or boc_khoi_luong, though the description never names a sibling to contrast with explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the EIR/QD347 and discipline/stage framing, which tells an agent the context it fits. There is no explicit when-to-use versus kiem_tra_toan_dien or kiem_tra_lod, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an EIR config or a resolvable project name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it mutates files, or any limitations; the output schema covers returns but not these 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact args list. Every line adds useful information, especially the allowed stage and discipline values.

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?

The core parameters are documented and the output schema exists, so the definition is usable. Still, for a no-annotation tool, it lacks sibling routing guidance and behavioral context such as safety, permissions, or side effects.

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%, but the description compensates well by documenting all four parameters. It gives the stage values (TKCS/TKKT/TKTC/AS-BUILT), discipline values (KT/KC/MEP/ALL), the meaning of ifc_path, and that project is auto-detected when blank.

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 a specific verb and resource: checking LOD 100–500 per element according to stage and discipline. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as kiem_tra_toan_dien or kiem_tra_ids.

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?

Usage is implied by the stage and discipline scoping, which gives the agent context for when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of the sibling audit or IDS-check tools.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether the pipeline is read-only or writes artifacts to disk (the dashboard export strongly implies file output), how long a full audit takes, or what happens if one stage fails. The only behavioral hint is the implication that a dashboard artifact is produced.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, followed by a compact Args block scoped to the four parameters. Slightly terse in that the Args lines are reference fragments rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the parameters are well covered despite 0% schema coverage. However, for a multi-stage pipeline tool with zero annotations, the missing side-effect and failure-mode information leaves an agent without enough to set expectations before invoking it.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema has no enums at all, so the Args block is doing real work: it supplies the valid stage values (TKCS/TKKT/TKTC/AS-BUILT) and discipline values (KT/KC/MEP/ALL) that the schema lacks entirely, plus the auto-detect rule for project when blank. It stops short of explaining what stage actually changes in the audit or how discipline filtering behaves.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it runs the entire BIM audit pipeline (IDS + LOD + QTO) and exports a BIM Health Dashboard. Naming IDS/LOD/QTO implicitly links to the sibling tools kiem_tra_ids, kiem_tra_lod, and boc_khoi_luong, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them or with tong_hop_audit.

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 word 'toàn bộ' (entire) implies this is the aggregate entry point versus the individual checks, so usage is inferable rather than stated. It gives no explicit 'use this when...' rule, no when-not conditions, and no guidance on choosing between this and tong_hop_audit, which sounds like an overlapping synthesis tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the tool is file-based (no IFC input) and reads prior audit outputs, and that the project name must match a previous run (an implicit failure mode). It says nothing about whether a file is written or a report sent to the lead, nor about error behavior when no prior audit exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact Args block whose lines each add value (allowed values, defaults) rather than restating type information. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and parameters are covered. Missing is what "gửi cho lead discipline" actually means operationally (does it write a file, emit a report payload, or nothing beyond the return value), which matters for an aggregation tool with no annotations at all.

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 must compensate — and it largely does, documenting all four parameters including the discipline and stage value sets (KT/KC/MEP/ALL, TKCS/TKKT/TKTC/AS-BUILT), the top default of 10, and the matching constraint on project. The abbreviations (KT, KC, TKCS…) are left unexplained, one notch below full marks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: aggregates IDS + LOD + QTO results from a results folder into a summary for the lead discipline. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the per-check siblings (kiem_tra_ids, kiem_tra_lod, boc_khoi_luong) by being the aggregator, but never names them explicitly.

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?

"Không cần file IFC — đọc từ các file audit đã chạy trước" gives a real precondition (the individual audits must already have run) and implicitly positions this as a follow-up step. However no sibling is named and no explicit "use this instead of X when…" routing is offered.

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