create_static_riks_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the creation action and offers no disclosure about model mutation, prerequisites, dependency on previous steps, or failure behavior. For a tool that creates a complex analysis step, this is a notable transparency 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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity. Being concise is good, but with 10 undocumented parameters and an extensive sibling list, a bit more structured guidance would make the description appropriately sized.

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 tool with 10 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the single-sentence description is far from complete. It states the purpose but omits parameter semantics, distinctions from related step tools, and practical usage context. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input side remains insufficiently covered.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 10 parameters, their roles, or how they relate to the Static Riks procedure. The agent receives no semantic assistance beyond the bare parameter names 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a Static Riks step') and adds a use context ('for post-buckling analysis'), which helps distinguish it from more generic step tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with closely related siblings like create_buckle_step or create_static_step, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 parenthetical 'for post-buckling analysis' implies when this tool should be used, but no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated. Given the many sibling step-creation tools, clearer routing guidance would be valuable.

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