lira_design_forces

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real context beyond that: it must be called after analysis, it yields one row per element/section/limit state/dcf, and it explains LIRA's load-case sign notation and the crane/seismic 'with' flag. It says nothing about ~11 behavioral knobs (top=20 truncation, by_abs, envelope, threshold, families, components, export_path writing a file), which is a notable gap for a read-only tool with a file-export parameter.

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 purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second sentence is a long nested clause inventorying the returned row shape, which is partly redundant with the existing output schema and displaces more valuable parameter guidance.

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?

The core purpose and result-row semantics are covered, and the output schema handles return values. But with 11 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and a complex, filter/envelope/export-heavy interface, the definition leaves an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly beyond defaults.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names no parameter at all; 'load_cases' and 'with' are output fields, not inputs. An agent reading this cannot tell what top, by_abs, envelope, threshold, families, components, sort_by, limit_states, or export_path do.

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 operation on a specific resource: computing design combination of forces (DCF/РСУ) and returning it per element/section/limit state. It anchors itself against siblings by saying the row shape matches lira_combination_forces and otherwise lira_element_forces, which lets an agent place it in the results family. It stops short of a crisp one-line 'returns X for Y' statement, since 'Design combinations of forces' is a noun-like phrase.

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?

The prerequisite 'after lira_run_analysis' is explicit and genuinely useful sequencing information. The implicit contrast with lira_combination_forces and lira_element_forces implies when this variant is chosen, but the description never says it outright or states exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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