validate_ifc_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a validation tool (implying read-only behavior) and mentions it's a 'bonus feature,' which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it modifies the IFC file, leaving behavioral traits partially covered but incomplete.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional details on args and returns are structured but slightly verbose; however, every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining IfcTester and return format), with minimal waste.

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 complexity of validation with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It includes purpose, parameter semantics, and a detailed return format in the output schema, which eliminates the need to explain return values. This covers essential context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It adds meaning by explaining 'ifc_file_path' as the path to the IFC file and 'report_format' with specific enum values ('console', 'json', 'html'), including a default of 'json' in the schema. This provides clear semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on path format or context usage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('IFC model'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it validates against IDS specifications. It explicitly mentions leveraging IfcTester's capabilities, which further clarifies its unique function compared to other tools like 'validate_ids' or 'create_ids'.

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 usage context by stating it validates 'against the current session's IDS specifications,' suggesting it should be used after IDS specifications are loaded or created. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_ids' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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