etabs_get_design_results_summary

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the return format. It does not contradict annotations. With annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a clean Args list with defaults, and a Returns line. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's purpose, arguments, and return type. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., analysis must be run) and error conditions. For a read-only retrieval tool with output schema, this is mostly complete but could add a note about when results are available.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. The docstring explains all three parameters: design_type ('Steel' or 'Concrete'), name (empty for all), and item_type (enum-like values). This provides sufficient semantics beyond the empty schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Get a summary of design results') and the resource ('for frames'). The verb 'get' and the resource 'design results summary' are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with raw forces or displacements.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like etabs_get_frame_forces or etabs_get_table_data. It does not mention context prerequisites (e.g., design must have been run) or when not to use it.

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