etabs_get_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the unit-handling rule ('Values with units are in present units'), but says nothing about row limits, pagination, or the cost of large table reads.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler and the core purpose stated first. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter tool, but every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 9-parameter table reader with a 20,000-row cap and pagination params, the description omits practical caveats (large reads, filtering strategy) that an agent would benefit from.

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%, so most parameters (table_key, where, fields, numeric, load_cases, group) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the units note, which loosely relates to the 'numeric' flag but does not explain it or the limit/offset behavior.

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 and resource: 'Read any ETABS database table as rows', which clearly separates it from list/edit siblings like etabs_list_tables and etabs_edit_table. It does not explicitly name the sibling that produces the required table_key, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The UI anchor '(Display > Show Tables)' hints at context but does not tell an agent when to prefer this over etabs_list_tables, etabs_get_results, or etabs_list_objects.

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