archicad_classification_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include the item path, which is useful output context, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or behavior when the system search string matches nothing or multiple systems.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation and terminated with the routing hint. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema requirement, the definition is nearly sufficient; only the upstream/downstream relationship to the other classification tools is thin.

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 100%, so both parameters (search, system) are already documented in the schema, including the 'first one by default' behavior. The description adds no format, matching, or scoping detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the items of a classification system') and names what the output contains ('with their path'), which is enough to distinguish it from the write-oriented sibling archicad_classify_elements. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly-named GetClassificationsOfElements.

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 clause 'to use in archicad_classify_elements' implies a workflow context and points at the consuming tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative classification-reading siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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