etabs_design_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it writes a Markdown file and returns both the text and the file. However, it does not state overwrite behavior if the target file already exists, nor any required model/analysis state, which matters for a file-writing tool.

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, front-loaded with the action verb and the output format, and the content list is efficiently compressed. No filler, though the trailing 'Returns the text and the file' is somewhat redundant with an existing output schema.

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 values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is operational context (preconditions such as a completed analysis/design run), which keeps this just short of full completeness for a report generator.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'top' and 'path' are already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'the design check with the most critical members' loosely maps to 'top' but adds no format or default detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Write an engineering summary in Markdown') and enumerates exactly what the report contains (model, loads, analysis status, base reactions, modal periods, drifts, design check). An agent can tell it produces a document rather than raw data, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like etabs_get_design_summary 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. analysis/design must have run first), and no mention of alternatives. With so many sibling reporting tools in the list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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