ifc_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return contents, the refusal scenario, and the reason for refusal (avoiding a second, independent copy). It could add more about side effects on the current Blender scene, but the provided behavior is clear and useful.

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 and front-loaded: the main action is stated first, followed by return-value highlights, then the refusal condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and when it will not operate. The output schema handles return value structure, so the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 only one 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description connects the parameter to an IFC file but does not explicitly specify path formats, absolute vs. relative paths, or valid file extensions. The parameter is simple enough to be mostly self-explanatory, but the description adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Open an IFC file and make it the active model.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ifc_model_info, ifc_get_element, or ifc_save, since it is the loading/initialization operation.

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 implies this tool is used when an IFC file needs to be loaded as the active model, and it provides an explicit when-not condition: it is refused when Blender already holds a model through Bonsai. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them.

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