rsap_node_displacement

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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior calculation, what happens if the node or case is invalid, or any error/edge-case behavior. The only behavioral hint is 'global axes,' which is more of a semantic qualifier than a disclosure of behavior.

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: a one-line purpose statement followed by a two-item argument list. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable. It avoids repetition of the tool name and includes only essential information.

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?

Given the tool is a simple query with two integer parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it omits important contextual details such as the need to run a calculation first, whether the result is from the current project, and what form the output takes. These gaps are notable for a results-query tool in a larger API.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is the primary source for parameter meaning. It provides clear, concise definitions for both 'node' (Node number) and 'case' (Load case or combination number), adding context that the schema lacks. It could specify indexing or units, but the given information is sufficient for basic use.

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 identifies the resource ('Nodal displacement') and adds a scoping detail ('global axes'), distinguishing it from other result queries like reactions or bar forces. However, it lacks a direct verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'Return'), making it a noun phrase rather than a full command. It is not a tautology because it adds coordinate-system context beyond the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rsap_bar_forces or rsap_node_reaction. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., running a calculation first) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This is a clear gap for a result-query tool among many siblings.

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