ifc_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether selection replaces or augments the current selection, whether any visual or model state is mutated, or what side effects may occur. The query syntax examples help, but important behavioral context is missing.

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, with the essential action stated first. The examples are efficient and directly instructive, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still omits crucial context for a selection operation: what happens to the previous selection, whether selection is visual or logical, and the exact role of limit/offset. The examples cover query syntax but not enough of the operational context for an agent to use the tool with confidence.

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%, so the description must compensate. The examples add real meaning for the 'query' parameter by showing valid ifcopenshell selector patterns. However, 'limit' and 'offset' are left to their bare names and defaults, with no explanation of how they behave in the selection context.

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 the action ('Select elements') and the resource ('an ifcopenshell selector query'), with concrete syntax examples. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ifc_get_element or ifc_list_entities, but the query-based selection intent is clear.

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 examples imply when this tool is appropriate: when users need to select elements by IFC type, name pattern, or property value. However, there is no explicit guidance contrasting it with alternatives such as ifc_get_element or ifc_list_entities, and no stated exclusions.

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