List routable Archicad projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds context about refreshing the background registry, which is a non-destructive side effect, and details the output fields. This goes beyond annotations but is not extensive, earning a 4.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and important usage guidance. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 simple nature of a listing tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately details the output content (project cards with IDs, identity, summary, aliases, focus evidence). It covers the essential behavioral and output information, making it complete for agent use.

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 input schema has one parameter (timeoutMs) with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter or add any semantic meaning beyond the schema defaults and constraints. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 title and description clearly state the tool lists routable Archicad projects with specific output details (IDs, identity, summary, aliases, focus evidence). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Use when a target is ambiguous,' implying this tool identifies which instance to use, unlike other tools like archicad_bind or archicad_capabilities.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when a target is ambiguous') and what not to do ('do not ask the user for a port or PID'), providing clear guidance on when it is appropriate versus alternatives.

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