Expand one semantic observation handle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the base safety is known. The description adds rich behavioral detail: paging behavior for specific handle types (story_*, elements_*), return contents for title_block and table handles, and the warning against stale snapshots. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of 7 sentences, which is reasonably concise but lacks clear structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). It front-loads the purpose but then mixes details about different handle types without visual separation, making it somewhat dense.

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?

Given the complexity (multiple handle types, pagination, no output schema), the description covers many behavioral aspects: what each handle returns, paging hints, and a warning about snapshot staleness. However, it does not explain pagination semantics (limit/offset) for all handle types, which is a gap.

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 low (40%), but the description compensates by explaining how to use handle values (snapshotId, story_*, title_block, table, elements_*) and what each returns. It also advises on detailLevel usage. For limit and offset, it adds nothing beyond the schema, but the overall parameter meaning is significantly enhanced.

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 specifies the verb 'expand' and the resource type 'snapshot, story, region, element-set, or detected-structure handle returned by archicad_capture_context', clearly identifying the tool's function and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on handle expansion rather than general reading or discovery.

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 provides explicit context: always pass snapshotId, use detailLevel=card first for a region, and recapture instead of using old snapshots. It implies usage after archicad_capture_context but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though the sibling list provides that context.

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