rsap_node_reaction

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 adds that results are in 'global axes', but lacks disclosure about output structure, error conditions (e.g., unsupported node), or that the tool is read-only. It does not mention whether results require a completed calculation.

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: one sentence stating purpose, followed by clear argument explanations. No filler or redundant information, appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 there is an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description omits important context such as the need to run a calculation first or the fact that this tool is only valid after a successful analysis. It also does not mention units, which could be inferred from output schema. Overall, adequate but with a noticeable gap in prerequisites.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: 'node: Node number (must be a supported node)' and 'case: Load case or combination number' clarify the meaning of both parameters. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could include examples or units.

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's function: 'Support reaction at a node (global axes).' This is specific with a verb+resource pattern and distinguishes it from sibling result tools like node_displacement and bar_forces.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., model must be calculated) or indicate when other result tools are more appropriate. The purpose statement implies usage but does not provide contextual direction.

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