ifc_representation_stats

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 does convey a read-only, analytical behavior through 'breakdown' and 'lists', and it reveals the output scope. However, it does not disclose potential performance or scanning implications hinted by map_scan_limit, or behavior when no model is open.

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 focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key 'whole-file geometry breakdown' concept and lists output dimensions in a compact, scannable manner.

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?

The output schema covers return value structure, so the description does not need to explain outputs. However, the tool still lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, which are needed for an agent to customize invocation beyond defaults. This makes it adequate but not 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 explain any of the three parameters: limit, map_scan_limit, and shared_map_limit. The names and defaults offer partial hints, but 'limit' is ambiguous and no parameter details are provided to compensate for the missing 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 clearly identifies a whole-file geometry breakdown by specific dimensions (RepresentationIdentifier/RepresentationType, item class, parametric vs tessellated share). It lacks a direct verb, but 'breakdown' and 'lists' convey the analysis action well. It is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like ifc_geometry_info by emphasizing file-wide aggregates.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ifc_geometry_info or ifc_model_info. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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