Get Archicad Command Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the mandatory precondition that this must be called before archicad_call_tool, which clarifies the tool's role in the workflow beyond what the annotations express.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, where the input comes from, and the critical workflow constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and clear sibling context, the description is complete. It covers input provenance, the required call order relative to archicad_call_tool, and the anti-hallucination warning. Return value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 schema itself has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It compensates well by specifying that command_name must be the exact value obtained from 'archicad_list_commands' and explicitly warns against guessing, which adds real semantic value beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the exact JSON schema (required arguments) for a specific Archicad command.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming archicad_list_commands and archicad_call_tool and placing itself between them in the workflow.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call after obtaining command_name from 'archicad_list_commands' and before executing 'archicad_call_tool'. It also tells the agent not to guess or hallucinate parameters, which is direct and actionable.

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