archicad_status

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 real behavioral context by disclosing what is inspected: live instance ports, versions, and whether the Tapir add-on responds — effectively a reachability probe. It stops short of noting failure modes or latency expectations.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the returned fields parenthesized inline. Every clause earns its place; no filler or restated title.

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 must convey return values, and it does: instance list with port and version plus add-on responsiveness. That is sufficient for a zero-parameter status tool, though a note on empty/failure responses would make it complete.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%, empty properties), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.

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 (Lists) and a unique resource (running Archicad instances) plus the exact fields returned (port, version) and the add-on health check. No sibling tool covers instance discovery, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 never states when to call this versus another tool, e.g. as a pre-flight connectivity check before tapir_run_command or archicad_run_api_command. However, the usage of a status/discovery tool is strongly implied by its name and resource, so it is not entirely guidance-free.

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