get_tendon_loss_results

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

The description's 'Get' agrees with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, but it adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether results depend on prior analysis steps.

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 and then gives a compact, scannable Args block. There is no filler, and the bilingual labels are directly useful for this API's domain.

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?

As a simple two-parameter read-only query, the description adequately explains the inputs and relies on strong annotations for safety. However, with no output schema, it should have sketched what the returned loss results contain or when they become available after analysis, which is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It provides useful labels: 'Tendon name' for name and 'Construction stage ID' for stage_id, which are more informative than the bare schema titles 'Name' and 'Stage Id'. It does not elaborate on stage_id optionality beyond the schema default, but it still adds real semantic value.

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 clearly states a specific operation and resource: 'Get tendon prestress loss results'. This distinguishes it from sibling query tools like get_tendon_position_result and get_tendon_length_result through the 'loss' resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_tendon_info or get_special_results. It also does not mention prerequisites like running an analysis first, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb 'Get'.

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