boc_khoi_luong

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.