lira_reinforcement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — fixed units (cm2, cm2/m, %, mm) and the presence of an 'errors' list for values LIRA could not select — but says nothing about prerequisites, model scoping, or how filtering/sorting affects the returned 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?

Sentences are dense but not padded; the problem is ordering — it leads with a fragmentary purpose clause and then spends most of its length on a column-by-column inventory. The unit conventions, which are the most actionable content, are buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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 re-listing every result column is largely duplicative; the description would be better spent on the undocumented input controls. With 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no stated prerequisites or filtering semantics, an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly on the first attempt.

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 9 parameters, yet only design_option receives any explanation, and even that is thin ('LIRA's design variant, default 1') without saying what values are valid or what changes. The eight other parameters — elements, components, threshold, sort_by, by_abs, top, model, export_path — are left entirely undefined for an agent to guess at.

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 opening phrase 'Reinforcement selected by LIRA's reinforced concrete design' identifies the resource but supplies no verb (get/list/read), so it reads as a data-format note rather than a statement of what the tool does. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like lira_design_forces or lira_element_forces, which could plausibly also return design results.

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 call this versus lira_design_forces or lira_element_forces, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., a model must be open and a design/analysis run first). The only usage-adjacent content is an aside that LIRA produces both asymmetric and symmetric variants when asked.

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