lira_punching_loads

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description's main added value is that the result contains N, QX, QY forces and MX, MY, MZ moments per node and load case for defined punching shear contours. However, with ten parameters the description does not disclose important behavior such as what 'top', 'envelope', 'threshold', 'by_abs', 'components', 'sort_by', or 'export_path' do, nor does it describe filtering or export side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical component list is compact and useful, and every clause contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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?

For a ten-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse to support correct invocation. The output schema and readOnlyHint reduce the need to explain return values and safety, but the description still fails to cover parameter behavior and filtering/export semantics.

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 ten parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameter meaning. It only broadly gestures at nodes, load cases, and force/moment components, while leaving top, model, by_abs, sort_by, envelope, threshold, components, and export_path entirely unexplained.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: loads on punching shear contours around nodes, with the force and moment components named (N, QX, QY; MX, MY, MZ) and the per-node/per-load-case granularity stated. It distinguishes the tool from general load-reading siblings by focusing on punching shear contours, though it relies on the name and readOnlyHint to make the retrieval verb explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as lira_read_loads, lira_fragment_loads, or lira_element_forces. The phrase 'for contours defined in LIRA' gives some context, but it does not tell an agent when this tool is appropriate or when another tool should be preferred.

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