lira_combination_forces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavioral content beyond that: the row granularity (one row per element, combination, limit state and design section) and the meaning of the DCL/РСН terminology. It does not discuss result volume, pagination, or performance at scale, so it stops short of 5.

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 tool's subject, followed by the one parameter worth explaining and then a row-shape note; no filler sentences. The final clause 'otherwise as lira_element_forces' is efficient but leans on an external reference rather than standing alone.

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?

Output shape is partly covered by the output schema and the description's granularity note, and the delegation to lira_element_forces is a genuine mitigation for shared parameters. For a 12-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, though, the description leaves too many filters (envelope, threshold, by_abs, export_path) unexplained for an agent to call it with confidence.

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 description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, and the description documents only one of them (limit_states, including the meaning of values 1-4 and the null=all default). The remaining eleven (top, by_abs, sort_by, elements, envelope, families, threshold, components, export_path, combinations, model) get no meaning at all; the phrase 'otherwise as lira_element_forces' delegates but does not document them.

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?

Names a specific resource (internal forces and stresses) constrained to load combinations, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling lira_element_forces ("otherwise as lira_element_forces"). An agent can distinguish it from the plain element-forces and displacement siblings without opening schemas, though the retrieval verb is only 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?

Usage is implied by the domain framing: use this when results are wanted per load combination rather than per raw analysis case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing guidance versus lira_combination_displacements or lira_design_forces, so selection among the results tools still requires inference.

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