archicad_search_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the empty-query-returns-groups behavior, which is genuinely useful. But the sentence about 'minimumArchicad' references a filter that has no corresponding parameter in the schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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?

Tight: one purpose sentence, one compact example set, and two short behavioral notes. Front-loaded and free of filler. Slight deduction because the 'minimumArchicad' sentence occupies space while conveying an ambiguous, arguably defective concept.

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 should convey what comes back; it partly does (groups when query is empty, command matches otherwise) but doesn't say what a returned command record contains or how limit affects results. For a discovery tool an agent will chain into schema inspection, this is adequate but leaves gaps on return shape and the access filter.

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 load for all three parameters. It explains only 'query' (words matched against name/group/description) and partially the empty-query case; 'limit' and especially the 'access' enum (any/read/modify/restricted) are never mentioned, which matters for an agent filtering by permission class. The stray 'minimumArchicad' reference further muddies parameter understanding.

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 ('Finds Archicad commands') plus the fields searched (name, group, description), and the examples pin down what a query looks like. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like archicad_command_schema, but the search-vs-inspect split is reasonably clear.

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 note 'Leave query empty to see the groups' is a real usage hint for discovery, and the examples imply the intended query style. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus archicad_command_schema or archicad_read, and the intended search-then-inspect-then-execute workflow is left implicit.

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