[EN] Construction plan for a house: schedule (Gantt) + per-trade order packages (cost, lead, region-driven spec constraints, inspection checklist). / 物件の施工計画。工種(こうしゅ)別に 工程(ガント) + 発注パッケージ(概算・工期・地域由来の仕様制約・検査チェックリスト) を返す。見積を工種に割って自動生成。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content and mentions auto-generation (implying computation), but does not explicitly state if it is read-only, required permissions, or potential side effects. It adds some context beyond schema but lacks depth.
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?
Description is short (two languages) and front-loaded with English. Each sentence adds value: it specifies what the plan contains and that it is auto-generated. Could be slightly more concise by dropping the repeated Japanese, but still efficient.
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 no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return value (schedule, cost, lead, constraints, checklist). It mentions auto-generation, which is useful context. It does not explain the input slug in detail, but overall it is complete for a retrieval tool.
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 coverage is 100% (single parameter 'slug' is described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's '物件 slug'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema suffices.
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 returns a construction plan for a house with specific components (Gantt schedule, per-trade order packages). The verb 'get' combined with the resource 'build plan' is unambiguous, and the content distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_house_bim' which returns BIM data.
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 implicitly indicates usage (when you need a construction plan), but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, or prerequisites. No mention of exclusions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.
Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.
29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.
Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.