etabs_call_api

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the raw return tuple, the need to provide COM ref/out parameters as dummy values, and that methods are accessed via SapModel paths. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the tool can call destructive methods, creating a minor inconsistency.

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?

The description is well-structured, starting with purpose, then examples, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

The description covers the return format (JSON of raw tuple) and usage patterns. It could mention potential error handling or that some methods may fail, but given the tool's generic nature, it is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: interface_path (dot-separated, empty for SapModel), method_name, and arguments (list required even for ref/out). This provides essential meaning.

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 clearly states it is an escape hatch for calling any ETABS API method not covered by other tools, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools. The examples reinforce its purpose.

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?

The description explicitly says to use when a method isn't covered by other tools, and provides examples and parameter explanations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the implication is clear.

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