bl_reload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the most important behavior: the tool works only on in-memory IFC data and preserves unsaved edits, unlike a disk reload. It does not discuss error handling, undo behavior, or side effects on selection/view state, but the key safety-relevant trait is clearly stated.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, a prominent caveat, and a clear usage instruction. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the central call semantics and the most dangerous misunderstanding (disk reload). The main gap is the timeout parameter's meaning, and there is no mention of what happens when no IFC data is in memory. Still, an agent can invoke the tool correctly in the common case.

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?

The description clearly explains the guids parameter: pass it to reload only specified elements, or omit it to reload every IFC-backed object. However, the timeout parameter is never mentioned, and schema description coverage is 0%, so its unit and purpose are left to inference. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Rebuild the viewport geometry from the IFC data currently in memory.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a disk reload, so an agent immediately understands what the tool does and what it does not do. This is clear, actionable, and non-tautological.

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 description gives a clear when-not-to-use signal: it is not a reload from disk because that would discard unsaved edits. It also instructs when to pass guids versus when to omit them to act on all IFC-backed objects. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the caution and usage conditions are strong enough for correct selection.

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