run_analysis

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

The description discloses important runtime behavior: long solve time, execution in a worker thread to keep the connection responsive, periodic progress heartbeats, and timeout semantics including that the solve continues in the background after a read timeout. Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden and does so well.

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 content is front-loaded with the core action and usage condition, and the behavioral warnings are relevant. The bilingual repetition adds length but appears intentional for a bilingual API audience; it does not create confusion.

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 single-parameter analysis command, the description covers prerequisites, duration expectations, concurrency behavior, and timeout semantics. It does not mention how to retrieve results, but the sibling get_analysis_results tool implies that path; this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, but the description fully explains the only parameter, read_timeout: its meaning, default value, and the non-obvious consequence of a timeout (throws an error while the solve continues). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run the structural analysis calculation') and makes clear this is the execution step, distinct from configuration and validation tools like configure_analysis and validate_model. The bilingual phrasing reinforces intent without ambiguity.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: use after loads, boundaries, and analysis settings are configured. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance adequately orients an agent among the many sibling tools.

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