Get ETABS instance status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds value by naming the returned fields (connection state, version, model path, lock status). It says nothing about failure behavior when no instance is connected, and the idempotentHint=false flag goes unexplained.

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 short paragraphs: purpose first, then parameter behavior, then return contents. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a summary of returns. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: it identifies ``instance`` as an alias from list_instances, states its targeting purpose, and specifies the omit case for the null default. Only the accepted alias format is left unstated.

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 ('Check the connection to an ETABS instance') and lists the concrete outputs, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It implicitly separates itself from list_instances by treating that tool as the source of the alias, but never states the distinction explicitly.

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 conditional rule: supply ``instance`` to target a specific instance, omit it when only one is running. That resolves the main ambiguity of a single optional parameter, though it offers no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like prepare_session or list_instances.

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