Defines a slab property in an ETABS model by specifying name, material, thickness, slab type, and shell type for structural modeling.
Define una propiedad de losa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| material | Yes | ||
| slab_type | No | slab | |
| thickness | Yes | ||
| shell_type | No | shell_thin |
| 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Define', implying a mutation, but reveals nothing about side effects, overwriting behavior, required model state, or response characteristics. The agent cannot infer any behavioral traits beyond the verb.
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 extremely short (one sentence) but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure or front-loaded useful information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence provides almost no value.
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 definition tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. Even with an output schema present, the agent cannot understand what the tool actually accomplishes, what inputs mean, or how to invoke it correctly. It fails to cover basic operational context.
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 does not mention any of the five parameters (name, material, thickness, slab_type, shell_type). The agent gets no additional meaning from the description beyond what the raw schema field titles provide, which is minimal.
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 'Define una propiedad de losa' is nearly a direct translation of the tool name 'etabs_define_slab', adding only the generic word 'propiedad' (property). It does state a verb and resource but provides no specificity about what slab property or how it differs from sibling tools like etabs_define_wall or etabs_define_rectangular_section. This borders on a tautology.
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?
There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about typical workflows. The single sentence offers zero guidance on selection among the many define_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.