rsap_bar_forces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the local axes and position range but does not state whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or prerequisites like prior calculation. It adds some useful behavioral context but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 main parts: a clean one-line purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure front-loads the key information for quick comprehension.

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 simple query tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and all parameter semantics. It lacks explicit usage guidance and preconditions, but the tool's purpose is well-scoped enough for an agent to select and invoke it reasonably given the sibling set.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: bar number, load case/combination number, and relative position with range 0.0-1.0. This goes well beyond the plain parameter titles in the 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 clearly states the tool computes 'Internal forces at a point along a bar (local axes)', specifying the resource (bar) and the exact output (forces at a position). This distinguishes it from sibling rsap_bar_force_envelope, which likely covers force envelopes.

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 implies usage for querying internal forces at a specific position along a bar but doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives like rsap_bar_force_envelope or mention preconditions such as a completed analysis. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided, but the context is clear enough.

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