summarize_d3plot

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags experimental/disabled status, the enabling env var, a concrete crash (0xC0000005) on headless d3plot load, and that failures are reported in the reply rather than silently. It does not say what files are written or where lspost.msg lands, nor how the 300s timeout interacts with a hung process.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the disabling condition and env var, which is the most decision-relevant fact. The crash anecdote is long but earns its place as a risk warning; nothing is padded.

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 detail is not needed, and the description covers gating, risk, alternatives, and that errors surface in the reply. The remaining gap is parameter and timeout behavior for a tool with zero schema documentation.

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 supply meaning for both parameters. 'Args: d3plot_path, timeout_s' only restates the parameter names; there is no stated path format, whether path is a run directory or file, or what happens on timeout expiry.

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 concrete verb and resource: have LS-PrePost load a d3plot and write its lspost.msg summary, with the s=<d3plot> form. It also points to alternatives (read_binout / check_run_health), though it does not distinguish itself from the closer sibling read_d3plot, which an agent may confuse it with.

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 precondition (LSDYNA_MCP_ENABLE_LSPREPOST=1) and explicit steering away with 'Prefer read_binout / check_run_health', which is strong when-not-to-use guidance. It never says positively when this tool is the right choice, leaving the agent to infer that it is the fallback for lspost.msg summaries when the GUI-backed path is enabled.

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