[EN] Run the Japanese Building Standards Act check (coverage, FAR, slopes, daylight, ventilation) and return pass/fail. / 建築基準法チェック (建ぺい率・容積率・北側/道路斜線・採光・換気) を houki-engine で実行し合否を返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description only states it 'runs the check' but omits crucial context about side effects or dependencies.
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 a single bilingual sentence, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly stating output format) without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should describe the return value. It only says 'return pass/fail' without specifying format (e.g., boolean, string, object). It also does not cover error cases (e.g., invalid slug, check failure details). Given the tool's complexity (multiple checks), the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably handle responses.
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?
The only parameter, 'slug', is described in the schema as '物件 slug' (property slug). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning, such as how to obtain the slug or its expected format, but it also does not mislead. The value is neutral.
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 runs the Japanese Building Standards Act check, listing the specific categories (coverage, FAR, slopes, daylight, ventilation) and that it returns pass/fail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_houki_rules, which retrieves rules rather than executing a check.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_houki_rules, get_build_plan). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid house slug or that the house must already exist. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
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.