[EN] Fetch a house's full bim.json v1 (project meta + elements) by slug. / slug を指定して物件の完全な bim.json v1 (project メタ + elements 配列) を取得。include_elements=false でメタのみ。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug (list_houses 参照) | |
| include_elements | No | elements を含めるか (既定 true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It correctly implies a read operation and explains the include_elements parameter behavior. No contradictions.
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 bilingual yet concise, with two sentences front-loading English. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, description explains what is returned (full bim.json with meta and elements) and how to control elements. Lacks detailed output structure but sufficient for basic usage.
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%, but description adds value by referencing list_houses for slug and explaining the default and effect of include_elements, surpassing schema details.
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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as a house's full bim.json v1. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_build_plan or get_product by specifying the BIM data type.
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 a clear context for using the tool and notes the effect of include_elements=false for metadata only. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state 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.