Read a schedule scheme

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds an important behavioral detail: 'Reads the file only, never Archicad.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying that the tool does not interact with the Archicad application at all.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the prerequisite workflow, then a clarifying limitation. No sentence is wasted and the structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the necessary background about why export is required, how to do it, and that the tool only reads a local file. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the path is the file path of an exported schedule scheme XML, including the export prerequisite. It does not specify path format or absolute/relative requirements, but for a single 'path' string parameter this is reasonably sufficient.

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 action ('Describe'), a specific resource ('exported Archicad schedule scheme XML'), and the exact content of the result ('criteria and its ordered columns, with what each column binds to'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_schedule_scheme and validate_schedule_scheme.

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 gives clear context: schedules have no API, so the user must export the scheme via a specific menu path and pass the file path. It also clarifies the read-only file operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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