etabs_materials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it mutates the model, what it returns, or how it behaves. The passive noun phrase 'Materiales definidos' does not disclose any actual behavior.

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 very short with no filler or redundant content, and it front-loads the core resource. It earns its place, though it could have been structured as a clear action sentence without adding length.

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?

Even though the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description still fails to make the operation explicit. An agent cannot confidently determine whether this tool lists existing materials or defines new ones, and no mention is made of how it relates to the define-material siblings.

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 zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about argument semantics. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools.

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 identifies the resource (materials) and two attributes (type and specific weight), but it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence with an explicit verb. It does not clearly state whether the tool lists, retrieves, or defines materials, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like etabs_define_concrete_material.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the many related sibling tools such as etabs_define_concrete_material or etabs_define_rectangular_section. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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