Define a rectangular concrete section for ETABS by providing name, material, depth, and width.
Define una seccion rectangular de concreto (depth = peralte, width = base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| depth | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| material | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Define', implying a model mutation, but does not disclose whether an existing section is overwritten, whether the material must already exist, or what side effects occur.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the dimension clarification is parenthetical. Every word contributes useful 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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description omits units, material prerequisites, and duplicate-name behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters but only maps depth to 'peralte' and width to 'base'. Name and material are left entirely unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 defines a rectangular concrete section, using the specific verb 'Define' and a concrete resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling etabs_define_circular_section by explicitly saying 'rectangular', and clarifies the depth/width terminology.
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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'rectangular section', which points to this tool over the circular-section sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. No prerequisites such as an existing material are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.