ifc_geometry_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful traits beyond the bare result list: placement is absolute ('whole nested IfcLocalPlacement chain has been multiplied through') and shared IfcRepresentationMap geometry is flagged with a share count. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the info-suffix and return-only wording make the non-mutating nature reasonably clear.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the purpose, uses a scannable list for outputs, and adds exactly one high-value behavioral clarification in a second short paragraph. No sentences repeat the tool name or schema fields.

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 description covers the return semantics well, and an output schema exists for return details, but input selection is under-specified. An agent cannot determine how to target an element (guid vs step_id), what the identifier contract is, or how include_metrics changes the result. Given three optional-looking parameters, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 for the three parameters. It never explains how guid and step_id identify the element, that one of them is required, what happens when both/neither are supplied, or what include_metrics=false does to the listed metrics. Listing volume and surface area only weakly hints at the include_metrics behavior.

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 resource ('Geometry of one element') and enumerates concrete outputs (representation type, items, profile parameters, 4x4 placement, bbox, volume, surface area), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It does not name sibling tools, but the scope ('one element') distinguishes it from model-level or representation-statistics tools.

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 content implies use when per-element geometry detail is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like ifc_get_element or ifc_representation_stats. The absence of exclusions leaves room for an agent to overuse it, but the output list provides enough context for basic selection.

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