engineering.bending_stress

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: sign of the moment is preserved, result is in Pa, and output is unrounded to 50 significant digits. It does not describe error behavior for invalid inputs (zero/negative c or I), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the formula, then parameter meanings, then the common pitfall and precision behavior. No filler; every clause adds information the agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds unit, precision, and constraint information. For a three-parameter pure-calculation tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it maps each of the three parameters to its symbol, unit (N·m, m, m⁴), validity constraint (c and I must be > 0), and the sign convention for moment. The extra note that c must be the neutral-axis-to-outer-fiber distance rather than the full height is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema lacks.

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?

States the specific verb and resource with the governing formula (σ = M·c/I) and the output unit (Pa), which unambiguously separates it from engineering.mech_stress, engineering.shear_stress, and engineering.section_moment_inertia. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the formula and one practical hint about which c to use for outermost-fiber stress, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. use mech_stress for axial, shear_stress for transverse shear). The guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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