steel_shape_weightLook up an AISC shape designation (W, C, MC, L, HSS, PIPE) for lb/ft, depth and area, with optional piece weight. 14th-Edition-era data. Published nominal values for estimating and orientation, not design guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qty | No | Optional piece count | |
| length_ft | No | Optional piece length in feet, for a piece weight | |
| designation | Yes | AISC designation, e.g. "W21X50", "HSS6X6X3/8", "L4X4X3/8" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. It discloses data source (14th-Edition-era), values are nominal, and not design guidance. This clarifies the tool's safety profile and limitations, though it doesn't describe error handling.
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?
Two sentences, directly front-loaded with the action and outputs, no fluff.
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?
Covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and limitations. Since there is no output schema, it still specifies what fields are returned. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the shape list provides enough differentiation.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds no param detail, but baseline is 3 for high coverage.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Look up' with resource 'AISC shape designation' and lists outputs (lb/ft, depth, area). It distinguishes from sibling steel_plate_weight by naming shape types (W, C, MC, L, HSS, PIPE).
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?
It states use case (estimating and orientation) and explicitly excludes design guidance. It doesn't name alternatives, but the shape list implies the scope, providing enough context.
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.