archicad_command_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: responses may be truncated, omitted definitions are listed in moreDefinitions, and passing such a name retrieves it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the ordering rule and the truncation workaround. Nothing is redundant.

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 small two-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, it covers the key operational quirk (truncation and follow-up calls). The unexplained 'depth' parameter is the one real gap.

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 carry the params. It implies that 'name' is the command or a moreDefinitions entry name by saying "pass one of those names here", but the 'depth' parameter (default 3) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb and resource: returns a command's input and output schemas plus referenced definitions. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like archicad_search_commands or archicad_read, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

"Read this before the first call of any command" gives a clear triggering condition and sequencing rule. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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