etabs_model_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the 'one-call' framing (single round trip instead of several list calls), with no mention of model-size limits, cost, or failure modes.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the payload enumeration first, the routing instruction second. The comma-delimited item list is dense but each item is meaningful content rather than 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?

With no inputs, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description does not need to document return structure. It still helpfully pre-announces the categories returned, which is what an agent needs to decide whether this single call substitutes for several list tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and the schema is empty as expected.

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 ('One-call summary') and resource ('the open model'), then enumerates exactly what the summary contains (file, version, units, lock state, object counts, stories, load definitions, materials, sections, groups). This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like etabs_status or etabs_list_objects.

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 directive: 'Start every task with this,' which tells the agent when to call it relative to the whole 60+ sibling set. It does not name a specific alternative or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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