archicad_instances

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it defines the three status values ('ready', 'no_project', 'busy') and the tapir-null degradation path, which are behavioral facts nowhere in the schema. It stops short of describing output shape in detail, but the field list partially compensates.

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?

Four short lines, each doing distinct work: what is returned, when to call, what status means, what tapir=null implies. The 'Call this first' instruction is placed early where an agent will act on it.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the reported fields plus the status and tapir semantics. It could go slightly further on how to use the port value in subsequent calls, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description wisely does not invent parameter guidance.

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 ('Lists the running Archicads') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: port, version, open project, Tapir add-on version. This is clearly distinct from siblings like archicad_read or archicad_modify, which operate on a specific instance after 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?

Explicit sequencing directive 'Call this first' removes any ambiguity about tool order. It also gives a concrete conditional: when tapir is null, only API.* commands work until the add-on is installed, which tells the agent when to fall back rather than press on with other tools.

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