Create a modal analysis step to extract natural frequencies, specifying modes, model, and previous step.
Create a Frequency (modal) analysis step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| num_modes | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| description | No | ||
| previous_step | No | Initial |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the tool 'creates' a step, without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, whether it modifies the model, how it interacts with previous_step, or what it returns. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the verb and object. It is concise, though arguably too sparse to carry the needed context for six parameters; that shortfall is better attributed to other dimensions.
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-value documentation is not required from the description. However, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete for an agent trying to correctly create a modal step. The description covers only the basic purpose, leaving operational context like model prerequisites and step ordering undocumented.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not. The word 'modal' hints at num_modes and model_name, but timeout units, previous_step semantics, description usage, and the meaning of model_name are left entirely to defaults and parameter 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('Frequency (modal) analysis step'). The parenthetical 'modal' distinguishes it from the many sibling step-creation tools, such as create_static_step and create_explicit_step. It is clear but does not elaborate on the step's role in an analysis.
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 for when to use this tool versus the many sibling step creators. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions such as 'use for eigenvalue extraction' or 'for transient response use create_dynamic_implicit_step instead.' The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.