List running ETABS instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: alias stability across the server session and a conditional warning field when a version falls below 21.0.0. It does not discuss ordering or performance, but for a zero-arg read those are non-issues.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then edge case — nothing wasted. The enumeration of return fields partially duplicates the output schema, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail the return shape, yet it still flags the one non-obvious behavior (version warning) and the key operational fact (stable alias). Combined with annotations and zero params, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the returned alias and version semantics, which is the right trade-off.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List all running ETABS instances") and immediately enumerates what each entry contains, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is unambiguous against siblings like get_status or get_model_geometry, which do not enumerate running processes.

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?

Explicitly states the call condition — "Call this before execute_code when multiple ETABS instances may be running" — and names the sibling that depends on it. There is no explicit when-not clause, but the conditional phrasing strongly implies the single-instance case does not require it.

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