ifc_list_property_names

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context beyond the name by warning that exporters routinely use nonstandard names and that queries against absent names return empty sets without error. This is valuable behavioral information for an agent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence core definition, followed by actionable usage guidance and a concrete motivating example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, timing, and a critical domain quirk. The only real gap is the absence of parameter explanation, but the output schema handles return values and the tool is simple enough that the description is otherwise complete.

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%, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'properties_per_set' at all. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema and does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states an exact verb and resource: it lists every property set and property name that actually exists in the file, with occurrence counts. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutation-oriented siblings like ifc_add_pset and ifc_set_pset_value.

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 explicitly instructs when to call this tool: 'before writing any property query', with a concrete rationale involving exporter naming deviations and silent empty results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is strong and practical.

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