etabs_get_design_summary

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the burden is reduced. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ordered 'worst members first' and include the governing combo. It does not mention pagination or how 'worst' is defined, so it adds value but not richly.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and orders the two output modes clearly, ending with the ordering behavior. No filler; the only slight shortfall is that key routing context is absent rather than the text being poorly structured.

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-value description is largely covered and the description need not explain the response shape. However, for a results tool sitting among get_results, get_concrete_design, get_wall_design, and design_report, the description omits which one to pick and whether design must have been run, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 only 33%, with 'limit' undocumented in both places. The description partially compensates by clarifying the 'kind' branch (steel ratios vs. concrete reinforcement) and hinting at result content, but it says nothing about limit/truncation semantics. Baseline 3 fits: it lifts the enum meaning but leaves one parameter opaque.

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 and resource ('Design results per member') and enumerates exactly what is returned for each kind: steel D/C ratios with governing combo or concrete required reinforcement. It is a clear, self-contained statement of purpose, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like etabs_get_concrete_design, etabs_get_results, or etabs_design_report.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stated (e.g., that a design must be run first via etabs_run_design), and no mention of alternative tools. The only implied usage is the steel/concrete branch, which is really a parameter choice rather than routing guidance.

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