Get Archicad Command Schema

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the command_name must be exact and obtained from archicad_list_commands, and strongly warns against hallucinating parameters. The read-only nature is implied by 'retrieves', but error behavior (e.g., invalid command_name) is not disclosed. Given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonable transparency.

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 two sentences, with the purpose first and the critical workflow instruction second. Every sentence is necessary; it is concise, front-loaded, and has no fluff.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and usage context. It doesn't detail return formatting, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. Minor gap: it doesn't mention prerequisite like an active Archicad connection, but sibling discovery tools imply that.

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 input schema only provides a title for 'command_name' (0% schema description coverage), but the description compensates fully by specifying that the value must be the exact command name from 'archicad_list_commands'. This adds precise semantic meaning and source for the only parameter, eliminating ambiguity.

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 'Retrieves the exact JSON schema (required arguments) for a specific Archicad command.' This uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and distinct resource (JSON schema for a command), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like archicad_list_commands (lists commands) and archicad_call_tool (executes commands).

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 explicit usage context: instructs to provide the exact command_name from 'archicad_list_commands' and mandates calling this tool before 'archicad_call_tool' to avoid guessing parameters. This clearly states when and how to use the tool, and implies alternatives by referencing the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.