etabs_list_installations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the local-machine scope and the v22+ support constraint, which is real context, but says nothing about how this relates to etabs_instances or what discovery enables downstream.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary resource front-loaded and no filler. The two-headed scope (installations and running instances) is slightly denser than ideal but still efficient.

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 not be described. The remaining gap is routing: with etabs_instances and etabs_status among the siblings, an agent cannot tell from this description alone which discovery tool to call, and the description does not close that 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus two concrete resources (ETABS installations on this machine, and currently running ETABS instances), with a version-support qualifier. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling etabs_instances, which appears to cover overlapping ground.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says this is a discovery/pre-flight step before etabs_connect, and no alternative is named for the 'running instances' half even though etabs_instances exists as an obvious sibling. Usage can only be inferred.

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