archicad_element_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the default-to-selection fallback and what imagery is returned, but omits cap behavior (limit max 20), large-model cost, or whether images come inline or as references.

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 resource and immediately listing output variants. 'So you can see them' is mildly redundant but the rest earns its place.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, describing the returned imagery is valuable since nothing else specifies returns. Still, it leaves the limit/cap semantics and scope precedence (elements vs elementType vs selectedOnly) unstated.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema handles size, limit, elements, and selectedOnly. The description only glosses imageType values and hints that Zone elementType yields a floor plan clip, adding slight meaning beyond the enum but not explaining size/limit trade-offs.

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+resource (returns images of elements) and enumerates the output flavors: 3D/2D/section previews plus floor-plan zone clips. No sibling tool produces images, so it is effectively distinguishable, though it never says so explicitly.

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 one useful scope rule — 'defaults to the selection when no scope is given' — but gives no guidance on when to prefer explicit element lists vs elementType vs selectedOnly, and names no alternatives.

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