get_modal_frequencies

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 notable behavior: frequencies are only readable through result objects, and add_results_if_missing is a side-effecting write that creates and evaluates Total Deformation results. It also documents the misleading legacy empty-list-with-ok:true behavior. Missing permission/auth context, but that is minor here.

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 core purpose, then the result-object constraint, then the Args note. The historical aside about the old empty-list behavior is slightly verbose but earns its place by justifying the flag, and nothing is redundant.

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 needn't be explained, and the side effect of the default-true flag is covered. However the analysis_index parameter is left unexplained and there is no guidance on prerequisites, leaving the two-param tool only partially specified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains add_results_if_missing (adds Total Deformation results and evaluates them when none exist) but only names analysis_index without saying what it indexes or how analyses are numbered, leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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 ('Get') and resource ('natural frequencies from a modal analysis'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like add_total_deformation_all_modes or solve_analysis. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but no sibling competes for this purpose.

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?

It implies context by explaining that frequencies are only readable through result objects and that the flag auto-adds results when none exist, which tells the agent when the flag matters. However, it never states when to call this versus the sibling result-creation tools, nor any preconditions such as requiring a solved analysis.

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