fem_buckling_results

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return structure (buckling_factors and modes), which is helpful. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, requires a specific run state, or how the analysis must be identified, leaving important behavioral traits unstated.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the return shape. Every clause earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description partially compensates for the missing output schema by showing the return shape, which is helpful. But the critical input parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and no annotations exist, so an agent still lacks enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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% for the single required 'analysis' parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains what value it expects. The only hint is 'from a completed buckling run', which does not clarify whether 'analysis' is an ID, name, or handle.

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 ('Extract'), resource ('buckling load multipliers'), and scope ('from a completed buckling run'), which clearly separates it from the sibling fem_buckling that runs the analysis. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 phrase 'from a completed buckling run' implies this should be called after a buckling solve, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. Usage is inferable from the precondition rather than stated outright.

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