section_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists output properties but does not mention return format, units of results, handling of unsupported shapes, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a calculation tool with no output schema.

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 efficiently lists the computed properties. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema with five shape variants, and the description does not enumerate them (though the schema does). Without an output schema, the description should state output units and return behavior, but it only lists property names. This is adequate but leaves important gaps.

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% with each dimension property having units (e.g., 'Width in metres.'). The description adds only the phrase 'standard cross-sections' but does not clarify which shapes are supported or add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool computes area, moments of inertia, section moduli, and radius of gyration for standard cross-sections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beam_bending or shaft_analysis, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no contextual hints about typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without any usage direction.

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