etabs_describe_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value: it discloses that output 'Reflects the connected ETABS version' (output varies with connection state) and that a method's 'safety level' is reported, which is behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the three query modes with no filler. It is dense but every clause earns its place; slightly more structural separation of the modes could aid scanning, hence not a 5.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers all three query modes and the version-dependence caveat, leaving only minor gaps such as behavior on an unresolved/ambiguous path.

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 the schema's own path description already gives the three accepted formats with examples. The description adds little beyond restating that path may be a method, interface, or enum, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters is appropriate.

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 specific verbs (show/list) against specific resources (method signature, interface methods/sub-interfaces, enum values) and enumerates what the signature output contains. An agent can immediately distinguish it from etabs_search_api and etabs_call_api 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 three modes are clearly mapped to input shapes (method path vs interface vs enum), which effectively tells the agent what it will get for a given path. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when to prefer this over etabs_search_api, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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