etabs_code_checks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it is a batched single-call operation and it discloses the return content per check (clause, governing numbers, pass/fail). It stops short of stating prerequisites such as requiring a completed analysis run.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the check inventory, with no filler. Every clause maps to an actual check or output the tool produces.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not owed, and the description still summarizes it. For a 13-parameter, no-required-param read tool the coverage is adequate but incomplete: it doesn't say which parameters apply to which checks, that all default to sensible values, or that torsional/soft-story limits are two-element arrays.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 38% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry weight, and it does partially: describing drift-vs-allowable, torsional irregularity, weight irregularity, modal mass participation and RS base shear vs ELF maps conceptually onto drift_limit, torsion_limits, weight_limit, modal_case/modal_target, and rs_case/elf_case/rs_target. However, it never names these parameters and leaves rs_direction, drift_amplification, checks and cases unaddressed, so an agent still has to read the schema.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (run standard post-analysis checks) and enumerates the six checks, which map one-to-one onto the `checks` enum values (drift, torsion, soft_story, weight, modal_mass, rs_scaling). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like etabs_run_design or etabs_get_design_summary without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'post-analysis checks' implies the model must already have been analyzed, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g., use etabs_get_design_summary for member design results, etabs_run_analysis first). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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