etabs_menu

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the UI Automation mechanism (no mouse) and the key trait that dialogs stay open after a command, requiring etabs_dialogs to close. Annotations already flag destructive=true/non-idempotent, and the schema's confirm field carries the mutation warning, so the description's extra dialog-state disclosure is a genuine value add.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with mechanism and mode definitions, then the follow-up workflow. No filler.

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 explained, and the description covers the mechanism, modes, and dialog follow-up. It could go slightly further on the destructive implications of invoke, but the schema's confirm field and annotations already carry that load.

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 67%; the description restates the list/invoke dichotomy (matching the action enum) but adds no path syntax or confirm semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Moderate coverage keeps this at the baseline 3.

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 mechanism (invoke ETABS menu commands via Windows UI Automation, no mouse) and enumerates the two modes, 'list' and 'invoke'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling API-based tools by covering 'commands that have no API'.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('commands that have no API') and routes the agent to etabs_screenshot and etabs_dialogs for the post-invoke dialog state. It does not explicitly contrast with etabs_call_api as the preferred path when an API exists, so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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