steel_pipe_scheduleSteel pipe dimensions by NPS and schedule: OD, wall, inside diameter and lb/ft for schedules 5, 10, 40/STD, 80/XS, 160 and XXS. Omit the schedule to list them all. Published nominal values for estimating and orientation, not design guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nps | Yes | Nominal pipe size, e.g. "2", "1/2", "1-1/4" | |
| schedule | No | Optional schedule: "40", "80", "160", "STD", "XS", "XXS", "5", "10" |
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 discloses that values are 'published nominal values for estimating and orientation, not design guidance,' which is important behavioral context. It also states the output fields, providing transparency for a lookup tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output fields, followed by usage instruction and caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return fields (OD, wall, inside diameter, lb/ft), available schedules, and usage variations. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional context.
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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the tip about omitting the schedule to list all, but this is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. It does not provide additional format or meaning beyond what the schema gives.
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 it provides steel pipe dimensions by NPS and schedule, listing specific attributes (OD, wall, inside diameter, lb/ft). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pipe schedule lookup, which is unique among the provided siblings.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Omit the schedule to list them all' explains how to vary the query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.