etabs_get_wall_design

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: results are ordered 'worst first' and the pier payload includes messages and boundary zones while spandrels include flexural and shear reinforcement.

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 sentences, no filler. The resource and its contents lead, and the prerequisite is a tight trailing clause.

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 detail is not required, and the prerequisite plus result-family split covers the core use. The gap is the unexplained filter parameters (label, story, limit), which leaves an agent guessing at how to narrow a result set.

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 0% for four parameters. The description explains the 'kind' enum by contrast (piers vs spandrels) but says nothing about 'label', 'story', or 'limit', so most of the filtering surface must be inferred from bare parameter names.

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 (get) and resource (shear wall design results) and enumerates the two result families with their payloads. 'Wall design' cleanly separates it from siblings like etabs_get_slab_design, etabs_get_concrete_design, and etabs_get_design_summary without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Run etabs_run_shear_wall_design first,' which tells the agent when this tool is callable and prevents an empty-result call. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the other design-result siblings or what happens if the design has not been run.

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