etabs_export_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the output is paged text, but stays silent on the file-write side effect implied by 'path' and on any size/latency implications of a whole-model dump.

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, verb-first, with the completeness guarantee and audit use case front-loaded. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 no explanation, and the description adequately conveys that the response is the full model definition rather than a subset. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the file-write behavior of 'path', but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 75% (max_chars is undocumented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond a generic '(paged)' hint, leaving offset and the section-prefix filtering semantics to 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?

Names a specific verb (export), resource (whole model), and format (.e2k text), and enumerates the covered content (stories, grids, materials, sections, objects, assignments, loads, cases). It reads as the 'complete dump' counterpart to etabs_model_overview, but never names that sibling explicitly, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

'One read gives the complete definition... ideal for audits' supplies a clear use case and signals this is the exhaustive option rather than a summary view. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., model_overview for a quick look), so it stops short of a 5.

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