get_analysis_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the row structure (property name, caption, raw value, type, read-only/visible flags), that enum settings return as integers with -1 meaning Program Controlled, and that values are in solver units. It omits operational context such as connection prerequisites and error behavior for an invalid analysis_index.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: what is read, what a row looks like, then value conventions, then args. Nothing is padded, though the Args list is terse-list style rather than integrated prose and some row-structure detail overlaps the output schema.

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?

A read getter with an output schema needs less return-value explanation, and the description arguably over-delivers there. But with no annotations and 0% param coverage, gaps remain: what analysis_index refers to, whether a connection must be established first, and how this relates to set_analysis_settings are all unspecified.

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, and it only partly does: group gets a genuinely useful explanation ("name prefix, e.g. 'Output Controls'"), while analysis_index and visible_only are named but never explained. One of three parameters is meaningfully documented.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "Read the Analysis Settings" immediately tells an agent this is a read-only getter, and the contrast with the sibling set_analysis_settings is inferable from the name. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it isn't a textbook 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 never states when to call this versus set_analysis_settings or inspect_object, nor any prerequisite (e.g. connect_to_mechanical or first fetching an analysis_index from list_lsdyna_analyses). The 'Args:' hints describe parameters, not usage conditions.

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