read_schedule_scheme

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states it 'Reads the file only, never Archicad', making it non-destructive and isolated. It also mentions it doesn't connect to Archicad, which is important context. It doesn't mention error handling, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage instruction and behavioral note. No wasted words, ideal length.

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?

Given it has an output schema separately, the description sufficiently covers the input and behavior. It explains the source of the file河南int and the read-only nature. It's complete for a single-parameter read tool, though it could mention that it expects a valid XML file format, but that's implied.

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 only parameter 'path' is described as the file path to the exported XML. The description says 'pass the file path', and context about exporting from Archicad clarifies its meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, this explanation is necessary and sufficient.

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's purpose: to describe an exported Archicad schedule scheme XML, including criteria and column bindings. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_schedule_scheme and validate_schedule_scheme, which imply modification and validation respectively.

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 explicitly explains the prerequisite (export the scheme first) and why it's needed (no API), which guides when to use this tool. It also implicitly differentiates from editing or validating by focusing on reading/describing, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions.

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