beam_bending

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool computes bending stress, deflection, and safety factor, and restricts inputs to two supports and two load types, but it does not mention assumptions like elastic beam theory, unit defaults, or how optional parameter interactions (e.g., material vs. elasticModulus) affect behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the key outputs and scope without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite a rich schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. It fails to clarify that material and section are optional when equivalent strength properties are supplied, nor does it explain the output format or units. Users are left to reverse-engineer the configuration from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the support/load enums and adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, such as when to use 'section' versus 'sectionModulus' or 'material' versus 'elasticModulus'. It does not compensate with extra clarity 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 names three specific outputs (bending stress, deflection, safety factor) and scopes the tool to simply supported or cantilever beams with point or uniform loads, making its purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' but is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like bolt_strength or shaft_analysis.

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 when to use the tool by enumerating supported beam and load types, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions. Users must infer that this is the tool for basic beam bending problems, not for shaft-specific or bolted-joint analyses.

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