steel_gauge_thicknessLook up sheet steel gauge thickness (gauges 3-28) in inches and mm with lb/ft², for plain, galvanized or stainless series. Published nominal values for estimating and orientation, not design guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gauge | Yes | Sheet steel gauge number, 3 through 28 | |
| material | No | Gauge series — the same number is a different thickness each | steel |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the values are 'published nominal values' and specifies contexts where they should not be used (design guidance). It also states the units returned, providing useful behavioral context beyond a simple lookup. It does not detail error behavior for out-of-range gauges, but the schema min/max provides that.
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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action and resource, states the parameter scope, and includes a necessary caveat in a compact final clause. No wasted words.
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 lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: the range of gauges, material variants, output units, and the intended usage (estimating) with a caveat. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not compensate. The description mentions the gauge range (3-28) and material series, but these are already captured in the parameter descriptions. It adds no new semantic information beyond 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 explicitly states the tool looks up sheet steel gauge thickness in inches, mm, and lb/ft², for three material series. The verb 'look up' and the resource 'sheet steel gauge thickness' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like weight calculators.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for estimating and orientation. It also provides a clear exclusion: 'not design guidance.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when more precise or design-grade data is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: lookups (bolt pretension, gauge, pipe, shape), weight calcs (plate, section, shape, takeoff), area calc, reference, MTR screening, and PDF/document generators (NCR, RFI, RFQ, markup). Even the three weight tools are explicitly differentiated by input type, and the descriptions cross-reference each other to avoid confusion.
All tool names share the 'steel_' prefix and follow a 'resource_property/action' pattern (e.g., steel_plate_weight, steel_rfi_generate). However, the suffix is not uniformly a verb or noun: some end with a noun (steel_coating_area, steel_pipe_schedule) and others with a verb (steel_mtr_check, steel_ncr_generate), creating minor inconsistency in the naming convention.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized domain. Each tool covers a distinct need for structural steel estimating and documentation, and the count feels comprehensive without being bloated or redundant.
The tool set provides thorough coverage of the structural steel domain: reference lookups, weight/size calculations, coating area, MTR checking, takeoff rollups, and formal document generation (NCR, RFI, RFQ) plus PDF markup. There are no obvious missing operations for a steel estimating/quality document workflow, and the tools together enable a complete estimating and documentation process.