rhino_export_ifc

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by noting it exports a subset and names the supported IFC schema versions. However, it does not disclose side effects such as file creation, overwrite behavior, or whether the export requires specific document state or permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action, scope, and the key format constraint immediately.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers the basic export scope and schema options. However, the ambiguous 'bridge only' qualifier and the lack of explicit side-effect or usage context make it incomplete for a tool that writes a file to disk.

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 description partially covers parameter semantics by mentioning the active document/subset (doc_id/object_ids) and schema versions (schema_version). However, with the stated 0% schema description coverage, it fails to compensate for the required 'path' parameter or the 'project_name' and 'entity_type_map' parameters, leaving semantic gaps.

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 a specific action ('Export'), a concrete resource ('active document (or a subset)'), and the exact output formats (IFC2x3 / IFC4 / IFC4x3). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like rhino_export_obj, rhino_export_stl, rhino_export_step, and rhino_export_gbxml.

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 use for IFC export and mentions that IFC4x3 is bridge-only, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other export tools or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance beyond the format embedded in the name and description.

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