etabs_render_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it renders offscreen, works with ETABS hidden, and never steals focus — operationally important for an agent driving an unattended instance.

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, front-loaded with the core action and capability list, then the operational caveat and the use case. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema, the description should say what a render call produces (image path, bytes, saved file), and it does not — a meaningful omission for a tool whose entire output is an artifact. Combined with partial parameter coverage and no mention of limits, it is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the result.

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 only 58% across 12 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It conveys the meaning of the colour_by modes and the deformed-shape input, but leaves width/height/theme/stories/highlight/show_slabs to the schema, and the prerequisite notes ('design_ratio needs a design run') live in the schema, not the prose.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Render the model offscreen from its data') and enumerates what can be varied: angle, deformed shape, and colouring by design ratio/displacement/section/storey. It implicitly separates itself from the window-capture sibling by stressing offscreen rendering from data, but never names etabs_screenshot explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use it to look at what you built and at results the ETABS window cannot be switched to through the API' gives a use case, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing against the closest alternative, etabs_screenshot (or etabs_refresh_view). The usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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