etabs_base_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates what the tool returns. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, whether prior analysis or selection is required, what units are used, or whether the model must be open.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core concept is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope but leaves the selection mechanism implicit. It does not explicitly state that the user must first select cases/combinations via etabs_select_output or that analysis results must exist, so the context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation gap exists.

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 (base reactions) and scope (selected load cases/combinations) clearly, distinguishing it from related output tools like joint reactions or frame forces. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', but the noun phrase is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'para los casos/combinaciones seleccionados' implies that the user must select load cases/combinations beforehand, giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of siblings like etabs_joint_reactions or etabs_frame_forces, nor does it name prerequisites such as etabs_select_output.

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