Get IFC Inheritance Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description complements this by explaining the tool's behavior (showing hierarchies, depth limits) without contradicting annotations.

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 with clear sections (main purpose, Args, Returns, Examples). Every sentence serves a purpose, though it is slightly lengthy. The use of examples aids understanding without adding unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides decent coverage. However, the return format is vaguely described ('Inheritance hierarchy showing ancestors and/or descendants') and the examples only hint at the output structure. More explicit details about the output (e.g., format of markdown vs JSON) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter semantics through examples and clarifying default values and allowed ranges (e.g., depth 1-10, direction options). This goes beyond the schema's 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 states that the tool retrieves the inheritance hierarchy (ancestors and/or descendants) of an IFC entity. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IFC Inheritance Tree'), and the examples distinguish it from sibling tools like ifc_get_entity, which retrieves a single entity.

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 clear context on when to use different parameters (direction, depth) and includes examples that illustrate typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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