etabs_load_cases

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

The description implies a read-only query (returning names) and no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it has no destructive or modifying behavior. The absence of annotations leaves the behavioral contract implicit.

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 concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple getter, the description is mostly sufficient, but it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of strings, array) or whether the names are sorted. Given that there is no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema is empty and the description does not add any parameter-related information, which is fine given the absence of parameters.

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 returns the names of defined load cases. It is specific enough to distinguish it from other ETABS tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since it is a simple getter, the lack of usage context is somewhat acceptable, but it could mention that it is read-only or contrast with write operations.

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