etabs_open_model

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. It only states that it opens a file, without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting the current model), error handling for missing files, prerequisites like an active ETABS connection, or the return value. This is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not disclose what happens after opening (e.g., model loaded into memory), whether it requires prior connection, or what the tool returns. Given the simple operation but the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it safely and effectively.

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 'path' parameter is a string with no schema description (coverage 0%). The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the path points to a .EDB file; it does not explain required format, validation, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Abre un archivo .EDB existente' clearly states the verb (open) and the resource (an existing .EDB file). It distinguishes itself from siblings like etabs_new_model and etabs_save_model by implying an existing file operation.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when opening an existing model) but provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It does not reference sibling tools like etabs_new_model to guide selection.

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