etabs_get_modal_results

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds specifics about returned fields (periods, frequencies, mass participation ratios) and code requirements, providing additional context beyond 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 well-structured with a clear summary, a code reference, and explicit Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and presence of output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and return format. It is complete and self-contained.

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 1 parameter with default but no description. The tool description explains the 'modal_case' parameter, its purpose, and default value, adding meaning beyond the 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 'Get modal analysis results: periods, frequencies, and mass participation ratios.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like etabs_get_base_reactions or etabs_get_joint_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?

It cites IS 1893:2016 Cl. 7.7.5a and advises to verify cumulative UX and UY against a 90% criterion, providing explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives but context and distinctive purpose suffice.

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