get_live_load_results

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds that the operation returns maximum/minimum envelope values for the queried element IDs. It also documents the supported result_type values. It does not describe output formatting or error behavior, but the annotations reduce the burden for safety-related behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return behavior and a compact Args list. The bilingual duplication makes it longer than strictly necessary, but each part is purposeful and structured for the intended audience.

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?

The description covers purpose, result envelope, and parameter semantics, which is enough to attempt a call. However, there is no output schema and no statement about what happens when element_ids is omitted (default ''), nor about the shape/units of returned envelope values, so an agent is left to guess those details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full semantic burden and does so well. The Args section explains case_name, enumerates result_type options ('force', 'stress', 'deformation'), and clarifies that element_ids can be element or node IDs, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a distinct resource ('moving load analysis results') and explicitly states that it returns envelope (maximum and minimum) results. This separates it from generic result tools like get_analysis_results and from tendon-specific result tools, so an agent can tell what it does without inspecting the schema.

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?

The description clearly establishes that this tool is for live load/moving load envelope queries on specified elements, giving enough context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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