add_stress_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a dependency on existing material definitions, but says nothing about whether the analysis must be solved first, whether the tool mutates results or only adds a result object, or whether it is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, so there is no padding. However, the trailing 'Args: analysis_index' line consumes space without conveying any information beyond the schema's own property name.

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 values need not be described. But for a tool in a simulation workflow with zero annotations, one fully undocumented parameter, and undocumented prerequisites, the description is too thin to let an agent call it correctly without trial and error.

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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. 'Args: analysis_index' merely restates the parameter name without explaining what an analysis index refers to, what the default 0 selects, or how to obtain a valid value.

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 and resource ('Add Stress Tool') and, unusually for this family, names the outputs it computes ('safety factor, stress ratio') plus the basis ('material limits'), which distinguishes it from sibling result tools like add_principal_stress and add_equivalent_stress. The term 'Stress Tool' itself is product jargon, but the parenthetical carries the meaning.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a solved analysis and assigned materials are needed), and no routing to alternatives such as add_principal_stress or add_equivalent_stress. The clause 'using material limits' hints at a precondition but never states it.

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