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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the disposable worker nature, the isolation boundary (reliability vs. hostile-code), the ability to read/write files, start processes, make destructive changes with user authority, timeout behavior (default, acceptance of finite values, null disables, cancellation termination), and points to get_docs. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 description is slightly long but every sentence adds value: purpose, safety caveat, timeout semantics, and a helpful pointer to get_docs. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently organized, though it could be tightened by removing minor redundancy (e.g., 'any positive finite timeout is accepted' is somewhat implied by 'default timeout is 300 seconds').

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?

Given the complexity of code execution, the description covers the essential aspects: environment (local_user, disposable), capabilities and risks, timeout handling, and discovery of commands via get_docs. The presence of an output schema relives it from explaining return values. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and handle the tool.

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 compensate. It does: 'port' is clarified as the Archicad port, 'script' is the Python code to execute, and 'timeout_seconds' is fully explained (default 300, positive finite accepted, null disables, and cancellation behavior). All three parameters gain meaning far beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute Python in a disposable same-account local_user worker against the selected Archicad port.' It identifies a specific verb (execute), resource (Python script), and target (Archicad port), distinguishing it from the sibling list/get tools that are informational.

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 description implies use cases (running Python scripts) and provides a pointer to get_docs for command discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name direct alternatives, though siblings are clearly non-execution tools. The safety warning also suggests caution, but not an explicit exclusion.

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

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It describes behavior: returns categories, commands, or full schemas, and includes search features (typo tolerance, partial match). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but as a read-only documentation tool, these are less critical. Could be more precise about output structure, but overall transparent.

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?

Well-structured with sections for usage, discovery workflow, search features, args, and examples. Front-loaded purpose. Slightly long but every section adds value; minor redundancy in examples.

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?

Covers discovery workflow, search features, and all parameter use cases. Has output schema so no need to explain return format in detail. Given complexity, description is complete and self-contained.

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 0%, but description compensates fully: explains each parameter's purpose, provides multiple examples, and details search features (typo tolerance, multi-word). Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states it provides documentation for Archicad commands. The description distinguishes it from sibling tools (execute_script, get_properties, list_instances) by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than execution or property listing.

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?

Provides explicit usage patterns (with and without arguments) and a discovery workflow. It also describes search features. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when needing to execute commands instead of reading docs), which would further enhance clarity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the search behavior, filtering modes, and return value (GUIDs for use with GetPropertyValuesOfElements). It does not mention any destructive or side effects, but it is clear that this is a read-only search operation. Missing a note about sorting or pagination beyond limit.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, MODES, Args, Returns, NOTE). It is concise, with no redundant sentences. Each part adds value.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers usage comprehensively. It explains the purpose of parameters, the return format, and typical use cases. The note about get_docs prevents confusion. It is complete for an AI agent to use.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to every parameter. It explains search, group, property_type, measure_type, property, and limit with examples and default values. It also shows how to use them in combination.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching and discovering Archicad element properties. It uses specific verbs like 'search and discover' and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_docs' in the final note.

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 description provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' examples and 'MODES' that cover various parameter combinations. It also tells when not to use (for command documentation, use get_docs).

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions the port scan range and the API, and lists the returned information. It does not mention side effects (none expected for a listing operation) or potential pitfalls, but it is transparent about how it works and what it returns.

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 description is three sentences, with the core purpose first, the mechanism second, and usage guidance third. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 discovery tool with zero parameters and an output schema that presumably documents the return structure, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns (port, project name, version) and how to use the port. There is nothing missing that an agent needs to call or use it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description adds the context that the port value from the output is used elsewhere, which is helpful, but with no parameters the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all running Archicad instances.' It also explains the scanning mechanism and the return fields, making it distinct from siblings like execute_script or get_docs, which operate on a specific instance rather than discovering them.

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 description provides clear guidance on how the output is used: 'Use the port value in other tools to target a specific instance.' This implicitly tells the agent when to call this tool (before other instance-specific tools) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with siblings. It is clear enough but could be more explicit.

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