rsap_results_summary

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that max_nodes and max_bars act as caps, scanning only the nodes/bars with the largest |Uz| and |My| respectively, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether results are sorted, or how peak values are aggregated, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema defaults. The format makes it easy to parse.

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 summary tool with three parameters, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics well. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., calculation must be run) and does not describe the output structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, it is mostly complete. It could benefit from a quick usage hint or mention of alternatives, but these are minor gaps.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section explicitly explains each parameter: 'case' as load case or combination number, 'max_nodes' as a cap on nodes scanned (largest |Uz|), and 'max_bars' as a cap on bars scanned (largest |My|). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the exact purpose: 'Summarise results for a case: peak nodal displacement and peak bar moment.' This is a specific verb ('Summarise') with a clear resource (results for a case) and distinguishes from sibling tools that return detailed results like rsap_node_displacement or rsap_bar_forces. It clearly serves as a high-level summary tool.

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 after a calculation is complete, as it summarizes results, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like rsap_node_displacement and rsap_bar_forces offer more detailed views, but no guidance on choosing between them is provided. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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