get_model_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that include_layer_story is 'refused on very large models (can crash Archicad)', discloses that it 'reads a property across every element', and explains the meaning of 'coverage' (whole-plan vs. model-elements-only). It also notes that by_type is 'cheap and safe' and that the tool returns counts only, never element data.

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 paragraph but front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes useful information (e.g., safety, warnings, coverage semantics), and there is no fluff. However, the paragraph is dense and could be split into cleaner sections for readability.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (what the tool returns, the meaning of 'coverage', the safety implications of include_layer_story). The missing port explanation is the main gap. Since an output schema exists, return values are handled separately, but the port parameter remains unexplained, reducing completeness.

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 has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must explain all parameters. It explains include_layer_story thoroughly (what it does, when to set it, and its risks), but completely ignores the 'port' parameter. Since port is part of the schema and lacks any description, the semantics for that parameter are missing, leaving a critical gap.

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 the tool aggregates element counts, differentiating it from sibling tools like query_elements (which return data) and get_element_data. It specifies the verb (aggregate) and resource (element counts), and the distinction from other tools is evident.

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 context by stating 'Counts only, never element data,' indicating when not to use it (if you need element data). It also clarifies the coverage semantics (whole-plan vs. model-elements-only) and warns about include_layer_story on large models. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses a direct 'use instead of X' statement.

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