etabs_connect

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: a 10-30 s launch latency, auto attach-else-start semantics, and the recovery use case. It does not cover return shape or failure modes (e.g. what happens if the pid is stale), but the latency warning is genuinely useful information not available anywhere else.

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 tight sentences, zero filler: the first names the action and the exclusion rule, the second lists the three legitimate use cases, and the latency caveat is appended where it matters.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus the 7 fully documented parameters mean the agent has everything required to invoke it. The only thin spot is what happens on connection failure or how long 'reconnect' blocks, which the description leaves implicit.

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 100% and every parameter already has a self-contained description (pid cross-references etabs_list_installations, mode enumerates attach/start/auto, instance explains 'b' as a second instance). The description largely restates the schema's 'auto' semantics and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ('Connect to ETABS') and immediately distinguishes itself from the ~60 sibling tools by noting they connect automatically with mode 'auto'. The agent can tell without opening a schema that this tool is the exception path, not the normal entry point.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call conditions: choose a specific instance or version, drive several instances, or recover after ETABS was closed. It also names the default behavior that makes this tool unnecessary in the normal case, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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