etabs_area_sections

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

With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the format of the output (e.g., a list of strings), or any potential side effects. The description is purely functional, lacking transparency about the tool's behavior beyond its purpose.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan, making it ideal for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the return type (names of area properties) and specific categories (slabs, walls, deck), but lacks usage context relative to sibling tools, which slightly reduces completeness. The output schema covers return format details, so this is acceptable.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters. No additional semantic explanation is needed.

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 the tool provides names of area properties (slabs, walls, deck), specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like etabs_frame_sections by focusing on area sections, though it doesn't explicitly say it 'returns' or 'lists' them, leaving a slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etabs_areas or etabs_frame_sections. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context, which is inadequate for a tool with many siblings.

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