archicad_quantities

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 useful context that quantities derive from built-in properties and can be emitted as JSON or CSV, but says nothing about performance, limits, or the cost of scanning the full model.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded on the core measure, with units and output dimension appended efficiently. No filler, though it packs several clauses that could be split for readability.

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 the description carries some return burden, but it names the four quantity measures and the JSON/CSV formats, which is adequate for a read-only aggregation tool. It stops short of describing the response shape or how grouping affects output.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents format, groupBy, elements, elementType, selectedOnly, and extraProperties. The description echoes the grouping and output-format dimensions but adds no syntax or naming detail beyond what the schema's own descriptions provide, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('quantity take-off from Archicad's built-in properties') and enumerates the measures produced (lengths, areas, volumes, counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like GetAllProperties or Get3DBoundingBoxes, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'totalled by element type and optionally by story or layer' signals the aggregation scenario but does not say when to prefer this tool over GetAllProperties or GetPropertyValuesOfElements. No when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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