shaft_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists outputs but does not describe output format, how results are returned, the safety factor calculation enabled by shearYieldStrength, or any unit handling conventions. The description offers only the core analytic scope without behavioral detail.

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 15-word sentence that is easy to scan and free of filler. It front-loads the key outputs and shaft type, though it omits some useful context.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is stark. It mentions three outputs but omits the safety factor output, how material vs property inputs interact, and what the response structure might be. Combined with absent annotations, the agent lacks a full picture for invoking this tool confidently.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 fields, including units and optionality. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond stating solid/hollow shaft geometry, so a baseline score of 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 names three specific engineering outputs (torsion stress, angle of twist, first lateral critical speed) and the shaft scope (solid/hollow), distinguishing it from siblings like beam_bending and section_properties. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculates,' making it slightly less directive.

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 use for shaft torsion and critical speed analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over beam_bending or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear enough to infer usage but lacks direct guidance.

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