etabs_dialogs

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, but add no meaning on their own. The description supplies the key behavioral fact those annotations omit: open modal dialogs block the ETABS API, which explains why this otherwise odd tool exists and when it must be run. It does not say what closing does to unsaved state, but the non-destructive annotation covers safety.

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 what and immediately followed by the why. No filler, no restating of the name.

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 not be described, and annotations plus the description cover safety and intent for a simple 2-param tool. The only residual gap is the undocumented action enum semantics, which the description only implies.

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 50%: the title parameter is documented ('close with no title closes all') but the action enum has no description in the schema. The description implies the list-vs-close distinction and the bulk-close case, but adds little beyond what the schema's title description already states, so it lands at baseline.

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 pair (list/close) and the resource (ETABS dialogs), which cleanly distinguishes it from every sibling. It also gives the causal motivation — a modal dialog blocks the API — so the agent understands what the tool is for.

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?

Explicitly names the situations that call for it: 'close leftovers after etabs_menu or a design run.' That is a concrete when-to-use trigger tied to specific sibling tools, not vague guidance.

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