etabs_areas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists output content ('su propiedad y nudos de contorno') and does not state read-only behavior, pagination semantics, or how the optional story filter affects results. The absence of side-effect disclosure is a gap, though nothing contradicts 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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition, and the core resource detail is front-loaded. It earns conciseness, though the brevity contributes to missing usage and behavioral information.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no action verb, the description is too thin. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the agent still lacks when-to-use guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral expectations.

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% and the description says nothing about limit, story, or offset. The agent receives no help understanding that story filters by level or that limit/offset paginate results.

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 identifies the resource as area elements (slabs and walls) and specifies they carry a property and contour nodes, which helps distinguish it from siblings like etabs_area_sections or etabs_points. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the agent must infer that the tool retrieves/lists these elements rather than creating or modifying them.

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 given about when to call this tool instead of related tools such as etabs_frames, etabs_points, etabs_area_sections, or etabs_define_slab/wall. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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