read_binout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: the operation is a read/browse (implying non-destructive), data is thinned to max_points, and an optional dependency must be installed via pip install "ls-dyna-mcp[binout]". It does not describe failure behavior for bad branch names, but the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the drill-down sequence, and the ls-dyna result-name list earns its place by helping recognition. The closing 'Args:' line duplicates the schema without adding value and could be cut.

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?

Five parameters with only one required, an output schema present, and no annotations — the description supplies the calling sequence, thinning behavior, and install prerequisite, which is most of what an agent needs. The unexplained 'directory' parameter is the main remaining hole.

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. It does explain the meaning and ordering of branch, subbranch, and variable through the drill-down narrative, and explains max_points as a thinning control. However, the trailing 'Args: directory, branch, subbranch, variable, max_points' is pure restatement, and 'directory' — the sole required parameter — is never given meaning (binout location? working directory?).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: browse and read binout (LSDA) results, and enumerates the result families it exposes (glstat, matsum, rcforc, spcforc, sleout, nodout), which tells an agent what data class this covers. It is not sharply differentiated from siblings such as read_glstat or read_d3plot, and the overlap with read_glstat is not addressed.

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?

Gives an explicit progressive drill-down protocol: no branch lists branches, branch lists sub-branches/variables, branch+subbranch+variable returns data. That is clear operational guidance on how to sequence calls. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over read_glstat/read_d3plot or when listing is unnecessary.

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