etabs_frame_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that geometric properties are included conditionally ("si se piden"), which implies the include_properties parameter controls this. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, pagination, or error behavior. The conditional behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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. It front-loads the resource (frame sections) and immediately clarifies the optional behavior. Every word contributes to meaning, achieving high informational density without verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are presumably covered there. However, the description lacks usage context (e.g., when to list sections versus define them) and does not explain the domain of 'frame sections' relative to other ETABS concepts. For a simple read tool with one parameter, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive given the absence of annotations and the large sibling set.

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 single parameter include_properties is explained by the phrase "con sus propiedades geometricas si se piden," which directly maps to the boolean. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides a title and default. The description clarifies that setting it to true includes geometric properties. It does not detail what those properties are, but the core semantic is conveyed.

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 that the tool returns defined frame sections, optionally with geometric properties. The verb is implicit (list/get), but the resource is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_frames (which likely returns frame elements) and etabs_define_rectangular_section (which defines new sections), but does not name them explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etabs_frames or etabs_area_sections. It does not mention that it is a read-only listing tool or contrast it with definition tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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