ifc_list_entities

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 mentions pagination and that the real total is always reported alongside the returned page, which is a specific behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, though 'list' implies read-only. The disclosed behavior is useful and covers a key aspect an agent needs to handle responses correctly.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose and pagination; the second adds a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, contains no fluff, and every sentence earns its place. Perfectly sized for a tool of this complexity.

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 the tool's simplicity (three parameters, one required), the description covers the essential purpose, pagination behavior, and subclass inclusion. Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer return structure without needing it in the description. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter semantics, but the names and context are fairly self-explanatory. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'ifc_class' by noting that subclasses are included, and the term 'paginated' relates to the limit and offset parameters. However, it does not explain the exact semantics of limit/offset (e.g., how pagination works, default behavior) beyond what the names imply. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail but does not fully cover all three parameters.

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 states the tool lists instances of a specific IFC class, includes subclasses, and is paginated. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ifc_list_property_names (which lists property names) and ifc_spatial_tree (which returns a tree). The scope and behavior are immediately understandable.

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 context for when to use the tool (listing instances of an IFC class) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when another tool should be used instead. There is no 'when-not' guidance or naming of sibling tools for comparative use. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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