gsa_output_extract_cut_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, side effects, or units. 'Extract' implies a read, but nothing confirms this or explains any behavioral constraints.

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 single front-loaded sentence is efficient with zero wasted words, but at this length it functions as under-specification rather than disciplined brevity for a tool with five required parameters.

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 described, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance across five required arguments, the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

All five parameters (assembly_ref, avg2d_stress, disp, case, axis) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The mention of 'forces/displacements' loosely hints at the disp and avg2d_stress booleans but gives no guidance on axis values, case identification, or assembly_ref semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Extract') and a specific resource ('cut assembly forces/displacements'), which is more precise than a tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related siblings gsa_output_extract, gsa_output_extract_cur_perm, and gsa_output_extract_arr, so an agent cannot easily tell which of the family to select.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling extract variants, nor any prerequisite or context such as requiring prior output initialization or an analysed case. The agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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