kiem_tra_lod

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.