Read ETABS skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the returned content is domain guidance, but says nothing about behavior for unknown skill names or the size/shape of returned content (an output schema exists, so that is partially excused).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. Minor redundancy in repeating the discover_api pointer that the parameter schema also carries.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential call path plus the prerequisite lookup. Only error behavior for invalid skill names is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as a list of skill names with a pointer to discover_api. The description adds no format, casing, or multiplicity guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Read one or more skills by name") and clarifies what a skill contains (domain-specific guidance for analysis, geometry, loads). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_docs, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 prerequisite: "Use ``discover_api`` first to list available skills," which routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling this one. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if a named skill is unavailable.

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