[EN] Match contractors to a house by trade × location (prefecture or lat/lng+radius). One house's order naturally splits across local builders. / 工種 × 場所 (都道府県 or 緯度経度+対応半径) で業者をマッチ。trade 省略で全工種を一括。1棟の発注が地域の複数業者に自然に分かれる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug | |
| trade | No | 工種 code (任意): temp/found/frame/roof/exterior/fittings/electrical/plumbing/hvac/interior/pv/inspection |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses matching logic (trade × location, splitting across builders) and omitting trade behavior. No contradictions, but could mention idempotency or side effects.
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?
Two sentences plus a translation, front-loaded with verb and resource, every sentence adds unique value. No 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?
No output schema, but the description implies a matching result (list of contractors). Could be more explicit about return format, but sufficient for a matching tool with clear inputs and context.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining trade omission matches all trades, which is not in the schema. Adds context for location matching (prefecture or lat/lng+radius) but not explicitly in schema.
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 matches contractors to a house by trade and location. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_contractors' by specifying a matching function tied to a specific house.
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?
Provides context that trade can be omitted to match all trades, and that orders split across local builders. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the behavior is clear.
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.