get_tendon_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that an empty string returns all tendons, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or error 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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the bilingual addition mirrors the parameter semantics without redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting that more specialized tendon queries (losses, position, length) live in sibling tools, but this is not essential for calling the tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates for the single parameter by explaining that tendon_name is either a specific tendon name or an empty string for all tendons. This is meaningful beyond the schema's default value, though it omits minor details such as case sensitivity or behavior for unknown names.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get tendon geometry and prestress loss results') and explains the tendon_name parameter, making the tool's intent clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_tendon_loss_results or get_tendon_position_result, so an agent may hesitate about which read tool to use.

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 implies usage: call when you need tendon geometry and/or prestress loss results, and use an empty tendon_name to get all tendons. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over get_tendon_loss_results, get_tendon_position_result, or get_tendon_length_result, and states no exclusions.

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