show_result

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotent=true, but readOnlyHint=false is ambiguous for a tool that only changes what the window displays. The description resolves that by stating the window keeps showing the result afterward while the model and its results are not changed, which is exactly the state-effect detail the annotation cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and return format, then a compact indented component table. The parenthetical POST /view/RESULTGRAPHIC and /view/CAPTURE implementation detail is the only line that doesn't clearly help an agent choose arguments.

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?

Eight parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the return value (PNG), the side effect (window state), most parameter meanings, and the analysis prerequisite. It is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity, falling short only on the required 'product' parameter.

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 has to carry the load, and it mostly does: it enumerates the valid components per result type, gives load_case string formats with examples, explains show_values and deform_scale defaults, and caps width/height at 2000 pixels. The notable gap is 'product' (required, enum gen/civil), which is never mentioned.

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 first sentence gives a concrete verb and outcome: display an analysis result in the NX window and return it as a PNG. That is clearly distinct from read_table/list_tables siblings, though it never names capture_view, the closest alternative, leaving the boundary between the two implicit.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Needs the analysis run in NX') and points the agent to read_table("STLD") for load_case names, plus the combination-suffix convention. What's missing is an explicit exclusion: nothing says when to use this instead of capture_view for the same window.

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