[EN] Search the building-materials catalog (3,900+ SKUs) by keyword/brand/category. / bim.house の建材・設備カタログ (3,900+ SKU) を検索。窓/断熱/設備/家具などを brand・category・キーワードで絞り込む。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | キーワード (商品名・型番・JAN・タグを部分一致) | |
| brand | No | ブランド完全一致 (例: YKK AP, LIXIL) | |
| limit | No | 最大件数 (1-50, 既定 20) | |
| category | No | カテゴリ完全一致 (例: 窓, 断熱材, 設備) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only repeats the filtering criteria from the schema without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it performs partial or exact matching (partially covered in param descriptions), result format, ordering, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the schema.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose in both English and Japanese. It is concise but includes redundant bilingual content; however, it still communicates the essential functionality without wasted 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 tool has 4 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input side adequately. However, it lacks details about the output (e.g., return format, ordering, pagination) which is important for an AI agent. The 3,900+ SKU count adds context, but overall completeness is average.
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%, and the description adds minor extra context (e.g., 'partial match' for q, 'exact match' for brand/category). The baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 that the tool searches a building-materials catalog by keyword, brand, or category, with a specific resource ('catalog') and filtering dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product or create_product.
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 usage for searching products, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_product for a specific SKU, list_mine for user items). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.