ifc_get_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of the returned detail and the identifier-based lookup, which is useful. It does not mention behavior when neither identifier is provided, error cases, or confirm that this is a read-only operation, though the 'get' verb implies it.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and returned content are front-loaded, and the identification method is stated immediately after.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, identifier options, and content scope. The only notable gap is lack of explicit guidance on the mutual exclusivity or necessity of guid versus step_id.

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. It maps the two parameters to 'GlobalId' and 'STEP id', giving basic semantic meaning beyond the raw parameter names. It does not specify expected formats, which parameter takes precedence, or that at least one identifier is effectively required.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: retrieving full detail for one element. It enumerates the returned content categories (attributes, property sets, quantities, material, type, spatial container), making it easy to distinguish from sibling listing or model-level 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 phrase 'Full detail for one element' implies when to use the tool, and 'Identify it by GlobalId or STEP id' tells the agent what input is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as ifc_list_entities or ifc_model_info, nor state when not to use this tool.

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