etabs_design_codes

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context on what 'list' returns and the range of design categories, but says nothing about whether a 'set' persists to the model, whether it requires the model to be unlocked, or how it interacts with design runs. Adequate but thin beyond 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?

Two compact sentences that lead with the action triad and resource before expanding into behavior. The GUI breadcrumb wastes a few tokens but overall the text is front-loaded and efficient with no filler sentences.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The action semantics and supported disciplines are covered, though missing unlock/permission prerequisites for a mutating 'set' leave a small gap for a write-capable tool.

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 67%, with 'code' and 'kind' documented and 'action' carried by an enum. The description reinforces 'list' semantics and enumerates disciplines (steel, concrete, shear wall, slab, composite), though this enumeration actually exceeds the 'kind' enum values (steel, concrete, concrete_shell), which could mildly confuse the agent about valid inputs. It adds marginal meaning over 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 specific verb triad (Read, list, change) applied to a precise resource (design codes), and even pins the GUI location (Design > ... > View/Revise Preferences) plus the supported design disciplines. It is unambiguous what the tool governs, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like etabs_run_design or etabs_code_checks.

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 implies usage through the action labels and notes that 'list' returns every supported code, which helps the agent pick between get/set/list. However it never states when to reach for this tool versus the many design-related siblings, nor any prerequisites for changing codes. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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