[EN] Catalog-priced cost estimate: BOM, total, ¥/m², lead times and critical path from the BIM takeoff. / カタログ連携の概算見積もり。BIM 要素 takeoff × 建材カタログ実価格 (窓/ドア/設備) + 原単位 (躯体/仕上げ) で BOM・総額・㎡単価を算出し、各資材の納期 (lead_time_days) と在庫、クリティカルパス納期も返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns BOM, total, unit price, lead times, and critical path, and implies it is a read-only operation. It lacks details on authentication or side effects, but is still fairly transparent.
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 in two sentences (English and Japanese) and front-loads the purpose. Though it packs many details into a single sentence, it remains clear and concise.
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 complexity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description explains key outputs (BOM, total, ¥/m², lead times, critical path). It could be more structured about the return format, but it is largely complete.
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% with the single parameter 'slug' described as '物件 slug'. The main description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 provides a catalog-priced cost estimate including BOM, total, ¥/m², lead times, and critical path from BIM takeoff. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like search_catalog or place_order.
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 indicates when to use this tool: for cost estimates based on BIM takeoff and catalog prices. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.
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.