archicad_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully adds that view-only commands like ChangeWindow and FitInWindow are allowed and clarifies the multi-instance port condition, though it does not describe errors or output behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the key non-mutating constraint and then organizes command, parameters, and port notes efficiently. It is concise, though the placement of the 'Also allowed' sentence after the port note is slightly less structured.

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 dynamic command dispatcher, the description gives examples and parameter notes but does not reference archicad_search_commands or archicad_command_schema for discovering valid commands or input schemas. With no output schema, it also leaves the return behavior implicit.

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 parameter meaning. It explains all three parameters at a basic level: command examples, parameters as the command's input object, and port only when several Archicads are ready. The 'parameters' explanation remains somewhat generic, but the core semantics are present.

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 states a clear verb and scope: 'Runs a command that does not change the project.' It distinguishes the tool from mutation-oriented siblings by emphasizing non-mutating behavior and examples, though it does not explicitly name archicad_modify.

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?

It gives useful context on allowed command types and when port is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus archicad_modify, archicad_search_commands, or archicad_command_schema. The usage is implied rather than routed.

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