bolt_strength

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names output quantities and does not explain assumptions (e.g., static loading, ISO 898 standard), default preload fraction, or behavior with invalid inputs. The tool's internal calculations and limitations remain opaque.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. While it is under-specified, it efficiently conveys the core outputs and subject scope without wasting 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 tool with six parameters, a nested outputUnits object, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to specify units, what the safety factor is relative to, or any default behavior, leaving the agent to infer much 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The phrase 'metric bolts' aligns with nominalDiameterMm and propertyClass, but this is minimal beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists specific outputs (tensile stress area, proof strength, recommended preload, safety factor) for metric bolts, which clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from siblings like beam_bending and shaft_analysis. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculate' or 'return', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shaft_analysis or material_lookup. The description does not mention appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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