lira_node_displacements

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does add real behavior: the model argument accepts a closed file, a path, or falls back to 'the model analysed last' (important stateful default). It also discloses that dynamic load cases emit one row per mode. Gaps remain around what envelope/threshold do to the result set.

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 purpose in the first sentence, then a compact per-argument block with no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the parameter lines read closer to notes than prose and the omission of six params is not an omission of words but of coverage.

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 explaining return shapes is rightly skipped, and the component/unit note covers what columns mean. Still, for a 10-parameter post-processing tool with zero schema descriptions, an agent cannot know how envelope or threshold alter the output, whether export_path writes a file, or what top/sort_by do — gaps that would cause misinvocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for model, nodes (both the [1,5] array form and the "1-10 15" range string), load_cases defaults and component naming with units. But top, by_abs, sort_by, envelope, threshold and export_path get no mention at all, leaving six of ten parameters — several of which materially change results — 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?

Names a specific resource ('node displacements of load cases') and ties it to a lifecycle point ('after lira_run_analysis'), which separates it from sibling result tools like lira_element_forces and lira_combination_displacements. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the combination variant, so sibling differentiation 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?

'After lira_run_analysis' gives a clear prerequisite ordering, and the note that the model 'may be closed' tells the agent it need not open one first. However it never states when to prefer lira_combination_displacements or lira_element_forces over this tool, nor what happens if analysis has not been run.

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