Archicad status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it explains the distinction between the Claude Connector add-on ('full create/modify power') and the Tapir add-on, which tells the agent what capabilities are available after the check.

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?

One dense sentence enumerating the return contents, followed by a single short directive sentence. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted words.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing what is returned (instances, active instance, add-on availability). It is nearly complete for a diagnostic tool, though it doesn't indicate behavior when no instance is running or the error/empty-result shape.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately uses its space to describe outputs instead.

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 ('checks the connection') and enumerates exactly what it reports: running Archicad instances with port/version/build/language, which is active, and add-on availability. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like select_archicad_instance or get_connector_guide.

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?

'Call this first if anything fails' gives an explicit, actionable trigger condition for the tool. It does not name alternative diagnostic tools or state when NOT to call it, but the usage context is clear.

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