etabs_select_objects

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing clear_previous behavior and returning confirmation. Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description aligns with annotations and provides useful behavioral context (affects UI selection, clears prior selection optionally).

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: one sentence for purpose, then clear Args list. No redundant words. Effectively communicates everything needed in minimal space.

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?

Sufficient for a selection tool: explains what it does, parameters, return value. Doesn't mention error handling for non-existent objects, but that's acceptable. Annotations and output schema fill minor gaps.

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 description coverage, the description's 'Args' section fully explains each parameter: name, object_type with allowed values, clear_previous with effect. This compensates fully, adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides names and defaults.

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?

Clearly states 'Select objects by name in the ETABS UI', specifying the verb 'select', the resource 'objects', and the context (ETABS UI). Distinguishes from siblings like etabs_get_selected (retrieves selection) and etabs_delete_object (deletes).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description is straightforward but lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' advice. The clear purpose somewhat compensates, but no exclusion criteria or references to related tools.

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