list_lsdyna_analyses

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the safety profile; 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive scan, and the solver-target strings (LSDYNA@LSDYNA, RestartLSDYNA@LSDYNA) disclose the exact classification rule used for flagging. It does not say whether the model must be open/connected or what happens on an empty model, leaving gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single sentence with the action and scope front-loaded; the nested parenthetical adds precise, non-redundant detail about solver targets, though it makes the sentence slightly dense to parse.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description needs only to convey purpose, scope and the flag semantics — all of which it does. The only real omission is call-context guidance (connection prerequisite, ordering relative to the create/get siblings).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming it is unfiltered over the whole model ('every analysis'); the baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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 (List) plus a precisely scoped resource (every analysis in the Mechanical model), with the added clarification that LS-DYNA ones are flagged rather than filtered. An agent can tell this is an inventory call distinct from get_analysis_settings or list_lsdyna_jobs, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the flagging logic suggests it is the discovery step before acting on an LS-DYNA analysis, but the description never states when to call it instead of get_analysis_settings or create_lsdyna_analysis, nor any prerequisite such as an active Mechanical connection.

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