etabs_select_output

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

No annotations are provided and the description does not indicate whether the tool mutates model state (e.g., changes the active output selection) or is a pure read operation. The verb 'selecciona' suggests a state change, but side effects are not disclosed.

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 concise and to the point, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary detail. However, it lacks any structural breakdown or related information that might help with understanding parameter usage.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple selection tool, but it does not specify whether both parameters can be provided simultaneously, what happens when one is omitted, or whether there is any confirmation of success. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not elaborate on expected values (e.g., case/combination names) or the relationship between the two parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but additional context would be needed for correct usage.

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 purpose: selecting cases and combinations for result queries. It is distinct from sibling tools that define or run load cases/combinations, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it should be used before consulting results, but this is not stated nor are any prerequisites (e.g., after running analysis) mentioned.

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