Get attributes

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

With readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive already covered by annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact summary fields returned per attribute type, what detailed:true unlocks (skins, layer states, dashes, hatch lines, pens), and that layer results include the active layer combination. This is exactly the return-shape disclosure needed when no output schema exists.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the bulk is an extremely dense per-type field enumeration that is far larger than needed for selection/invocation. Much of the field-level detail could be deferred, making the description overweight for its primary job.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating returned fields per type and describing the counts-only mode. An agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it documents the per-type fields, explains the detailed flag's effect, and clarifies that field names align with the create_*/modify_attributes tools, helping an agent correlate attributes with mutations.

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 (Lists) and resource (Archicad attributes of one type) with their settings, and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it uses the SAME field names as create_*/modify_attributes. An agent can tell it is a read/inspection tool for attributes rather than a mutator.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it notes that omitting type returns counts per type and that detailed:true expands output, which hints at when to use each mode. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like get_attribute_folders or get_attribute_property_values, nor any prerequisites.

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