engineering.section_moment_inertia

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that — all dimensions must be > 0, inputs in meters yield m⁴, rectangle height is the bending-direction dimension, hollow sections are unsupported, and π is carried to 30 digits. Only the error behavior for invalid shape strings or missing per-shape parameters is left unstated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the operation is stated first, then formulas, then constraints. Every clause carries information, though the inline formula block makes it harder to scan than a bulleted per-shape breakdown would be.

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 no explanation; the description supplies what the schema lacks — shape-to-parameter mapping, units, sign/positivity constraints, orientation of height, and the hollow-section exclusion. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing beyond the literal shape enum strings.

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 'shape' has no enum, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it maps width/height to rectangle, diameter to circle, and flange_width/flange_thickness/web_height/web_thickness to i_beam, plus clarifies height's orientation and the >0/unit constraints. It stops short of listing the literal accepted shape values or saying unused parameters should be omitted/null, 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 and resource ('도심 중립축에 대한 단면 이차모멘트 I 를 계산한다') and enumerates the three supported shapes with their formulas, so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling engineering.moment_of_inertia, leaving the agent to infer the area-vs-mass distinction from the terminology.

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 rather than stated: the description names which parameters belong to each shape, which guides selection, and excludes hollow sections. There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance or a named alternative for cases like mass moment of inertia or non-centroidal axes.

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