rsap_bar_force_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely states 'extreme internal forces' without explaining what 'extreme' means (e.g., min/max over samples or load cases), what forces are included, or the return format. This ambiguity is a significant gap for a tool that computes envelope values.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or 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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only three parameters, the description should explain what 'extreme' means and what output should be expected. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of forces per sample point, min/max pairs, which force types) or any related context such as load case combinations. This makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret 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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining each parameter: 'bar' as bar number, 'case' as load case/combination number, and 'samples' as the number of equally spaced sample points (>= 2). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types, though it does not mention the default value of 11.

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 action ('sample a bar along its length') and outcome ('return the extreme internal forces'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling rsap_bar_forces by mentioning 'extreme' but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rsap_bar_forces. It implies usage by describing the sampling behavior, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or criteria for selecting this tool.

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