[EN] List curated public houses (famous buildings, landmarks); set include_user=true for public user houses. / 運営 curated 公開物件 (有名建築・巨大ランドマーク・SOLUNA 等) の一覧。slug / 規模 / 要素数 / bim.json 充足率(%) を返す。ユーザー作成物件 (u-*) は既定では含まない (直リンクで個別取得は可)。include_user=true で公開ユーザー物件も含める。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_user | No | 公開 (private=false) のユーザー作成物件も含める (既定 false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that user houses are excluded by default and that include_user controls inclusion. It also lists the return fields (slug, size, number of elements, bim.json fulfillment rate). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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 bilingual, leading to redundancy. It could be more concise by merging the English and Japanese content. However, the key information is front-loaded in English, and the structure is acceptable.
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 sibling tools (many house-related operations), the description covers what the tool does, its parameter, and return fields. It could be more complete with pagination or sorting details, but overall it provides sufficient context for an 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% (one parameter fully described). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the parameter's purpose. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 lists curated public houses (famous buildings, landmarks) and distinguishes from user houses. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_house_bim, create_house, and list_mine by specifying the scope (curated public vs user-created).
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 explicitly tells when to set include_user=true to include public user houses, and implies that default use is for curated houses only. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.