etabs_run_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('run analysis') but doesn't mention side effects, whether the model is modified, if it requires an unlocked model, or if results are overwritten. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely alters model state.

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 concise—two short sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter note follows logically. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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 (which covers return values), the description lacks guidance on when to run the analysis, prerequisites (like an open model), and behavioral implications. For a tool that likely triggers a heavy computation and modifies results, this is incomplete. An agent would need to infer usage context.

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 description adds meaning to the 'cases' parameter by stating 'Con `cases` solo ejecuta esos casos', clarifying that providing cases restricts the analysis to those. However, it's minimal and doesn't explain the expected format of case names or the behavior when cases is null. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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's function: 'Corre el analisis' (runs the analysis). It specifies a verb (run) and a resource (analysis), and the mention of 'cases' adds a scoping detail. It distinguishes from sibling tools because none of the others are named for analysis execution, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides guidance on the 'cases' parameter (only runs those cases) but gives no overall context on when to use this tool versus others. It doesn't mention prerequisites like an open model or whether it should be called after setup. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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