etabs_get_grid_systems

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds return format (JSON array of names) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first states function, second states return format. Fully front-loaded, no unnecessary text. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Tool is simple (no params, safe read operation). Description tells what it does and what it returns. Output schema exists, so return structure is further detailed. Complete for this context.

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?

No parameters defined; schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Get all grid system names defined in the model.' Verb+resource are clear: 'get' and 'grid systems.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'etabs_set_grid_system' which modifies, and other get tools are for different objects (areas, frames, etc.).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. However, given its simplicity and specificity, usage is implied. The description lacks context like prerequisites or when it might be inappropriate.

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