etabs_run_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds the important behavioral requirement that the model must be saved, which is critical for safe invocation. Also notes the return is a confirmation, implying the tool does not return results directly.

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?

Description is two impactful sentences plus a return note. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical condition, and ends with a clear outcome. No 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description is fully complete. It states the action, prerequisites, and outcome. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly indicates no arguments are required via the note and context. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states 'Run the structural analysis for all active load cases.' Verb is 'run' on 'structural analysis', distinguishing it from siblings like etabs_run_concrete_design and etabs_run_steel_design. Specifics scope to 'all active load cases'.

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?

Explicitly notes prerequisite: 'The model must be saved (have a file path) before running analysis.' Provides clear context for when to use. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the single condition is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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