etabs_run_steel_design

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

While annotations provide destructiveHint=true, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, model modifications, or confirmation details beyond 'Returns: Confirmation.'

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?

Extremely concise; two sentences with no unnecessary information. Every word 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?

For a parameterless tool with annotations and output schema, the description covers the core function. Lacks mention of prerequisites like design code, but completeness is adequate given 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to elaborate on inputs. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 specifies a clear action ('Run') and resource ('steel frame design check'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like etabs_run_concrete_design and etabs_run_analysis.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or required setup (e.g., design code, prior analysis).

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