etabs_get_frame_forces

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by stating the return format (JSON array) and the prerequisite for analysis completion, which is beyond the annotations.

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 concise with no extraneous text. It front-loads the core action, then lists arguments and return value in a structured format. Every sentence is necessary.

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 explicit output schema (not shown but present), the description sufficiently covers usage. It notes prerequisites and parameter options. Minor missing context (e.g., units) is likely addressed in the schema, so overall adequate.

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 compensate. It clarifies 'name' as a frame or group, and specifies that 'item_type' can be 'Object', 'Group', or 'SelectedObjects' with a default, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool retrieves frame internal forces and lists the specific components (P, V2, V3, T, M2, M3). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like etabs_get_joint_displacements or etabs_get_base_reactions.

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 includes a critical prerequisite: 'Ensure analysis has been run and results are set up.' While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the prerequisite guidance is valuable. No misleading or missing usage context.

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