rhino_import_ifc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: imported entities are organized as layers nested under target_layer_root, and the tool functions only in bridge mode. It does not disclose edge behaviors like layer creation when the root is missing, but the added context is meaningful and consistent with the annotation.

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?

A single sentence of about 20 words carries the verb, resource, layer-mapping behavior, and the bridge-only scope with no filler. The most decision-relevant qualifier ('bridge only') is placed at the end after the core semantics. Every element 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?

With an output schema present and four parameters well described in the input schema, the short description is mostly adequate. The notable gap is that '(bridge only)' is stated but never explained — an agent cannot tell whether the tool errors, no-ops, or behaves differently outside bridge mode. It also does not mention whether the target layer root is created if absent or merged with existing layers, which matters for an import operation.

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?

Although the context signal reports 0% schema coverage, the nested _ImportIfcIn schema actually documents all four parameters well (path, doc_id, filter_by_type, target_layer_root). The description adds a little beyond the schema by stating the entity-to-layer mapping behavior for target_layer_root, but it does not elaborate on path, doc_id, or filter_by_type. Net effect is modest added value on top of already-readable 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Import an IFC file') and adds a scoping detail ('mapping each entity to a layer under target_layer_root') that clarifies the operation's effect. The '(bridge only)' qualifier further narrows the context. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling import tools like rhino_import or rhino_export_ifc, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for bringing IFC data into the Rhino document. The '(bridge only)' qualifier is a partial contextual constraint on when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as rhino_import or rhino_cmd_import, so routing among the large sibling set is left to inference.

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