lira_fragment_loads

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 usefully adds that results are broken out per node and per load case, but it says nothing about the behavior of top/envelope/threshold/export_path, which materially change the output; with annotations present the bar is lower, so 3 fits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the dense engineering abbreviations (RBW, bimoment) and the odd 'Loads on fragment' opening make it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a 10-parameter tool with filtering, envelope, threshold and export options is badly under-described. An agent cannot tell how the optional parameters interact or what happens by default.

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 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain nodes, load_cases, components, sort_by, envelope, threshold, top, or export_path. Only an oblique hint ('per node and load case') maps to two of the ten params.

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 description names the resource (fragment loads) and the specific quantities returned (RX, RY, RZ, RUX, RUY, RUZ, RBW), which is a precise verb-plus-detail statement. It falls short of 5 because it does not distinguish this from the related sibling lira_read_loads, so an agent has no signal about which reader to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than lira_read_loads or lira_punching_loads, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the model must be open or an analysis run). Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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