[EN] Get a house's effective site conditions used by houki_check (zoning, road width, high/fire district, climate zone, latitude, neighbor setback, min lot area, shadow regulation). / houki_check が使う物件の有効敷地条件を取得 (用途地域・道路幅員・高度/防火地区・気候区分・緯度・隣地距離・敷地面積最低限度・日影規制)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug (必須) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. It lacks details about whether the operation is safe or has any destructive potential.
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 two sentences (English and Japanese), front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently lists the conditions without redundancy or unnecessary words.
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 simple input (one slug) and no output schema, the description adequately states what is retrieved but does not mention the return format or structure, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 100% (slug parameter has a description). The description adds context about the house, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself.
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 it retrieves effective site conditions for a house, listing specific items like zoning, road width, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_site_context' and 'admin_set_site_context' which are write operations.
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 it should be used before 'houki_check' by stating the conditions are 'used by houki_check', but it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions.
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.