etabs_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that geometry is reported in present units and clarifies that 'name' is the identifier every API call expects while 'label' is GUI display text — genuinely useful behavior context. It says nothing about pagination or truncation behavior, which matters for a list operation with a default limit of 200.

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 with no filler, and the core listing behavior is front-loaded ahead of the identifier-clarification note. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 explanation is unnecessary. However, for a list tool with a default limit of 200 and a 5000 maximum, the absence of any note about result truncation or paging leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 only 40%: 'kind', 'limit' and 'offset' have no descriptions. The description partially compensates by enumerating the object kinds ('frames, areas or points') that map to the kind enum, but it adds nothing about limit/offset paging semantics. Roughly a baseline-plus score given the coverage gap.

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 (List) and the resource (frames, areas, points) plus what is returned (geometry in present units, sections, stories). The addition of the name/label distinction sharpens what the tool is for. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as etabs_find_objects or etabs_model_overview.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The name/label note implies the tool is the way to obtain API identifiers, but the agent must infer that itself.

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