kiem_tra_toan_dien

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.