etabs_load_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states a noun phrase and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely queries model data.

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 phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place by providing useful operational detail; it simply names the concept.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fails to state the operation or differentiate from sibling load-related tools. An agent would struggle to know when to call this versus etabs_load_cases or etabs_load_combinations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter descriptions to cover. The description adds no parameter meaning, but baseline 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain about 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 names the resource (load patterns) and mentions attributes (type, self-weight multiplier), but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It is not a tautology, but the action is implied rather than stated, making it somewhat vague.

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 siblings such as etabs_load_cases or etabs_load_combinations. There is no context about selection criteria or exclusions.

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