etabs_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing per-table metadata in the result (has data, is editable) and the pre-condition that result tables only appear after analysis/design runs — genuinely useful context for interpreting output.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the timing caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information about scope or output.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand the result. Minor gap: no mention of result-set size, ordering, or how table keys map to the 'contains' filter examples.

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 100%, with both parameters ('contains' filter and 'include_empty') fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List ETABS database tables') and enumerates the table categories covered (definitions, assignments, analysis and design results), which cleanly separates it from siblings like etabs_list_objects or etabs_list_properties. It never names a sibling or an alternative, so the distinction is inferable rather than explicit.

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 note that 'Result tables appear after analysis/design' gives useful timing context for when results-bearing tables become available. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus etabs_get_table (read a specific table) or etabs_list_properties, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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