von_mises

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 omits critical traits such as the need for mode selection (principal vs. cartesian), that yieldStrength enables the safety factor, or that inputs are in pascals. The tool's behavior is significantly under-specified.

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 sentence that immediately names the three outputs. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 11 parameters, two modes, and no output schema or annotations. The description is too minimal to convey the tool's full complexity and usage context. It does not explain the two input modes, which parameters are needed for each, or what the output format looks like.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including mode-dependent requirements, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no parameter specifics, which is acceptable given the schema's 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes von Mises equivalent stress, maximum shear stress, and yield safety factor from a stress state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beam_bending or shaft_analysis, which address different structural calculations.

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 phrase 'for a stress state' implies the tool is used to analyze stress states, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites like mode selection or yield strength input. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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