etabs_refresh_view

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It mentions refreshing to see changes, implying a non-destructive UI update, but does not explicitly state side effects or safety. The lack of detail on potential impacts (e.g., unsaved work) leaves some ambiguity.

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 that directly communicates the tool's function and purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and effect. It could be slightly more explicit about the non-persistence of changes (i.e., it only updates the view), but overall it provides adequate context for such a simple utility.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The absence of parameters is consistent with the tool's simple action, and the description adds value by clarifying the purpose without parameter complexity.

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 refreshes ETABS windows to display recently created changes. It provides a specific action and purpose, distinguishing it from vague or tautological descriptions, though it could be more precise about what 'windows' entails.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It implies usage after making changes but lacks explicit guidance on when this refresh is needed or how it compares to other tools.

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