etabs_get_story_forces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by detailing the return structure (JSON array with specific fields like P, VX, VY, MX, MY, MZ) and the parameter behavior ('Empty = use currently selected'). No contradictions.

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 and well-structured: purpose in first sentence, usage context, parameter explanation, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema not shown but return fields enumerated, the description fully covers the tool's behavior for its simple parameter set. Adds standard reference for 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the single parameter: 'case_or_combo: Load case or combo name. Empty = use currently selected.' This provides essential context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 storey forces' and lists specific quantities (shear, overturning moment, axial). It distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_get_base_reactions and etabs_get_story_drifts by focusing on story-level forces for seismic verification.

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?

Description explicitly ties usage to IS 1893:2016 Cl. 7.6.3 verification, providing a clear context. While it doesn't list alternatives, the specific standard reference gives strong guidance for when to use this tool.

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