archicad_model_summary

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 the useful behavioral trait that this consolidates many reads into a single call ('One-call overview'), but says nothing about response size, cost, or whether the data is live versus cached.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The content enumeration is front-loaded and the usage cue ('Start here to understand a model') closes it out. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return contents, and it does so by listing the six categories returned. It is nearly complete, missing only any note on structure or size of the aggregated payload.

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 the schema fully covers the (empty) surface; per calibration this is baseline 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is required and that the scope is the whole open project.

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 ('One-call overview of the open project') and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: project info, stories, element counts by type/story/layer, zone areas, current selection. That is far more specific than the adjacent archicad_status or GetProjectInfo, though it never explicitly names which sibling it supersedes.

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?

'Start here to understand a model' gives a clear orienting/entry-point context for when to reach for this tool. It does not say when NOT to use it or point to a narrower alternative (e.g., use GetStories if you only need stories), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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