engineering.mech_stress

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no unit conversion is performed, the sign of force is preserved with the tension/compression convention left to the caller, and the result is unrounded to ~50 significant digits. It omits what happens on area ≤ 0 (error form) and any return shape detail, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the formula, then units, sign convention, and precision — each sentence adds a distinct fact an agent needs, with no filler 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?

For a two-parameter deterministic calculator with an output schema and safety annotations already supplied, the description covers formula, unit semantics, sign handling, and precision — everything needed to call it correctly. Only edge-case/error behavior for non-positive area is left implicit.

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 0% and both params are bare strings, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: force in N with its sign convention, area in m² with a strict >0 constraint, plus the resulting unit in Pa. It does not explain why the params are strings or what numeric formats are accepted, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a specific verb+resource (compute normal stress, σ = F/A) and names the resource precisely as 수직응력, which distinguishes it from the shear/bending-stress and strain siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 by the formula and by the note that units pass through unchanged (N with mm² gives MPa), which implicitly tells the caller when the tool fits. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives such as engineering.shear_stress, engineering.bending_stress, or units.convert.

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