etabs_get_story_drifts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the code-check logic and the return format, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing critical behavior.

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 lead sentence, followed by code references, then parameter documentation, and finally return description. While slightly verbose due to code quote blocks, every part is relevant and 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 3 optional parameters and an output schema exists. The description covers the return format as a JSON array of storeys with drift ratios and code-check results. Combined with annotations that cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter in detail: case_or_combo defaults to all selected cases, direction accepts X/Y/Both, and check_is1893 triggers code limit flagging. It also provides the code references for the limits, adding significant value.

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 inter-storey drift ratios and checks against IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22 limits. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'inter-storey drift ratios' combined with the code-checking capability distinguishes it from sibling tools like etabs_check_is1893_drift.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly tell when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool retrieves data and performs checks, while etabs_check_is1893_drift may only perform the check. No prerequisites or contextual cues are provided.

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