Extract natural frequencies and mode shapes from a completed FEM modal analysis to review vibration behavior and displacement results.
Extract natural frequencies from a completed modal run. Returns {frequencies_hz: [...], modes: [{mode, frequency_hz, max_displacement_mm}, ...]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape including the per-mode fields, which is genuinely useful. It does not state what happens if the run is incomplete, whether results are cached, or what permissions/state the analysis must be in, so coverage is partial.
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 action and precondition come first, followed by the literal return shape. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
Because no output schema exists, the description correctly compensates by spelling out the return structure, which is a real strength. The gap is on the input side: the required 'analysis' argument is never explained, and with no annotations there is no safety or state information to fall back on.
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 'analysis' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning at all about what value it expects (a name, handle, ID, or index) or how to obtain it. This leaves the only required input undocumented in both places.
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 ('Extract natural frequencies') and scopes it to a 'completed modal run', which distinguishes it from the sibling fem_modal that performs the run. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 modal run' implies the prerequisite (a prior fem_modal solve), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to fem_modal_results versus fem_results or fem_result_probe, so the agent must infer which result tool to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.