etabs_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by clarifying the operation is non-connecting/non-mutating and by enumerating the inspection targets, including the non-obvious detail that the lock state reflects analysis results.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the enumerated outputs. Every clause carries information; 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 the description need not document return values, and it still helpfully previews the reported fields. For a zero-parameter, read-only status probe, this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify, and the schema itself is trivially complete.

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 names a specific resource (connection and model status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: attachment state, version, open model file, units, and lock state. The phrase 'without connecting' distinguishes it from etabs_connect, though it does not explicitly separate its role from close siblings like etabs_analysis_status 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?

'Without connecting' implies this is a safe pre-flight check to run before etabs_connect, which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over etabs_connect or etabs_analysis_status, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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