list_instances

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' and the listed output fields imply a read-only discovery operation, but the description does not explicitly state no side effects, permissions needed, or behavior when no instances are running. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the action, the target, the output fields, and the call-order guidance.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete for a low-complexity discovery tool. It covers what the tool lists and explicitly frames it as the first call in the workflow.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter-level detail because there are no parameters to document.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('running Archicad instances') and enumerates the returned fields (port, version, open project, Tapir add-on availability). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_info or get_model_summary, which focus on project/model data rather than instance discovery.

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 phrase 'Call this first' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, positioning the tool as the entry point for the suite. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but for a parameterless discovery tool this is sufficient context.

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