Read Archicad data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds behavioral details: default return count for all_elements/selected_elements, raw mode caution, ambiguity handling, and development-only host/port usage. No contradictions with 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 highly concise: a few sentences that front-load the purpose, followed by usage rules and constraints. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's complexity (5 params, nested requests, no output schema) and good annotations, the description covers key behavioral context: max 20 reads, context reuse, default summary mode, ambiguity handling, and development-only host/port. It could briefly mention return value structure or error handling, but the description is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 only 20%, but the description adds meaning by explaining when to use target.contextId, that requests can be up to 20, and that host/port are for development only. However, it does not explain each action's parameters or provide detailed semantics for the complex nested requests object.

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 clearly states it is for 'low-level diagnostic reads' and explicitly distinguishes it from the 'drawing-understanding workflow.' It contrasts with sibling tools like archicad_capture_context and archicad_inspect, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidance: prefer archicad_capture_context and archicad_inspect for observation, never call all_elements to validate a semantic snapshot, run up to 20 isolated reads, reuse target.contextId, and use raw mode only when GUIDs are explicitly needed. It also notes that direct host/port is development-only and that ambiguity returns candidate cards instead of guessing.

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