etabs_open_model

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description only mentions returning success confirmation. It does not add context about potential side effects like closing the current model or overwriting state, which is expected given the destructive hint.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences plus a brief returns line. Every sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary 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 a single parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description covers core functionality but omits important details like side effects on the current model (e.g., whether it closes unsaved work), which is relevant given destructiveHint=true.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing a clear explanation and example for the file_path parameter: 'Full path to the .edb model file (e.g. "C:/Models/Building.edb")'. This adds meaningful guidance 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 the verb 'Open' and the resource 'existing ETABS model (.edb) file'. Among sibling tools like etabs_new_model and etabs_close_model, it distinguishes itself by specifying the action on an existing file.

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 implies use for opening existing .edb files, contrasting with siblings like 'new_model' for creation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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