lira_combination_displacements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important prerequisite that analysis must have been run and that combinations default to all, but it does not explain behavioral parameters such as envelope, threshold, by_abs, or export_path.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured with a separate combinations note. Every sentence contributes useful routing or parameter information.

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 the tool's complexity, the output schema covers return values and annotations cover read-only safety. However, the description leaves many input parameters unexplained, so an agent can understand the main intent but not the full behavior of important options like envelope and threshold.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains only the combinations parameter and references lira_node_displacements for the rest, leaving parameters like envelope, threshold, by_abs, components, and export_path undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and action: node displacements in load combinations, including the DCL/РСН terminology. It also distinguishes itself from lira_node_displacements by explaining the combination-vs-case substitution.

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?

Clearly says this should be used after lira_run_analysis and that combination numbers come from lira_load_combinations, defaulting to all. It implies the alternative lira_node_displacements for case-based results but does not state explicit exclusions.

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