kiem_tra_ids

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.