ifc_model_info

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 reveals the expected outputs but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an open model, how limits affect behavior, or whether any side effects or performance concerns exist.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core output components immediately and earns its place.

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 read-style info tool with an output schema and only optional parameters, the description captures the main response surface. However, it leaves the two parameters functionally unexplained and does not mention any preconditions, making it minimally viable rather than 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 explicitly explain class_limit or storey_limit. The names and the description's mention of a per-class histogram and storey list imply their purpose, but the semantics—such as ordering, truncation, or special values—are left unspecified.

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 the tool returns a model summary, a per-class entity histogram, and the list of storeys—a specific resource and output profile that distinguishes it from siblings like ifc_list_entities or ifc_geometry_info. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the noun phrase is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ifc_list_entities or ifc_representation_stats. The description states what it provides but never suggests a scenario, prerequisite, or exclusion, so an agent must infer the use case from the tool name and siblings.

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