Set up linear buckling analysis by applying a unit force at the load location; result factors show the multipliers at which buckling occurs.
Configure analysis for linear buckling. Apply a unit-magnitude force constraint at the load location; the result factors are the multipliers at which buckling occurs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis | Yes | ||
| n_factors | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful method context: applying a unit force and interpreting factors as buckling multipliers. However, it does not state whether this mutates existing analysis state, what permissions or prior setup are needed, or how the result is retrieved.
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?
The description is two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by the key computational detail and result interpretation.
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?
For a complex FEM configuration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It explains the buckling method and result meaning, but omits prerequisites, parameter meanings, and how this step fits with fem_run and fem_buckling_results.
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 for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'analysis' should contain or what 'n_factors' controls, leaving both parameters effectively meaningless to an agent.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Configure analysis for linear buckling.' An agent can tell this is an FEM buckling setup tool, distinct from generic FEM tools like fem_run or result readers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as beam_buckling or fem_buckling_results.
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?
The description gives procedural detail about applying a unit-magnitude force, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like fem_modal, beam_buckling, or fem_buckling_results. No prerequisites or workflow placement are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.