rsap_add_bar_uniform_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the local vs. global coordinate interpretation and the projected flag, but it does not disclose whether loads are additive, whether a load case must pre-exist, or any side effects/errors. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 appropriately structured: a single purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds informational value, with no repetition, fluff, or wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and gives key contextual details (units, axes, projection). It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., that the load case must exist) and return behavior, but for a load-adding operation the core usage is well-covered. Slightly more could be said about cumulative behavior or validation.

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, and it does thoroughly. It defines every parameter (case_number, bars, px/py/pz, local, projected), provides units, a bars format example ('1to10'), and clarifies local/global defaults. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add a uniformly distributed load along bars.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rsap_add_bar_point_load and rsap_add_nodal_force, stating exactly what load type and target are involved.

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 clearly implies its use case (applying distributed loads to bars), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance. No mention is made of point loads (rsap_add_bar_point_load) or other load types, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the tool name and first sentence.

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