Get IFC Entity Definition

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the description's 'Get' verb. The description adds detail on returned content (attributes, inheritance, WHERE rules, description) without contradicting annotations. No additional side effects or auth needs are mentioned, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 well-structured: a brief overview, clear bullet-style Args, Returns summary, and examples. Each sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy or fluff; ideal for an MCP tool.

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?

Given the rich input schema and annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and behavior. It lacks an explicit output schema but summarizes return content. For a read-only query tool, this is adequate and 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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with block descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats these in Args with minor additions (e.g., examples of entity names). This adds marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool retrieves the complete definition of an IFC4.3 entity, listing included elements. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like ifc_get_inheritance (which focuses on inheritance only) but does not explicitly differentiate. The purpose is clear and specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description provides examples but does not explain scenarios for choosing this over ifc_get_inheritance, ifc_get_propertyset, or ifc_search_entity. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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