Run a read-only API command

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

Annotations already indicate read-only safety; the description adds concrete behavior: mutating commands are refused, parameters are validated against the bundled schema where available, and the command scope spans two API families. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.

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 front-loaded sentences cover action, scope, restrictions, validation, and alternatives with no filler. The embedded documentation links are useful context rather than padding.

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 generic command runner with an output schema, the description covers scope, restrictions, validation, and alternatives. It omits pointers to sibling discovery tools like list_api_commands or describe_api_command and the role of the optional port, but the provided links and output schema make it workable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies 'name' via 'by name' and never explains 'port' or the shape/meaning of 'params'. The generic 'params are validated' line does not provide per-parameter semantics.

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?

States it runs one read-only Archicad API command by name and returns the result, specifying both the official JSON API and Tapir add-on. This clearly differentiates it from execute_write_api_command and other dedicated tools.

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?

Explicitly restricts to read-only commands, states write commands are refused and belong to execute_write_api_command, and instructs to prefer dedicated tools when available. This gives an agent clear selection criteria against the many sibling tools.

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