engineering.shear_stress

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: unit conventions (N, m², Pa output), a domain-validity warning about applying rectangular_max to non-rectangular sections, and the fact that missing required arguments raise an error.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then per-mode formulas, then units, then caveats. No filler sentences; every clause carries information an agent needs to call the tool 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?

The output schema covers return shape, and the description still pins down output units (Pa) and the no-rounding behavior. For a 6-parameter computational tool with zero schema descriptions, this is complete.

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% (titles only), yet the description documents every parameter: shear_force in N, area in m² with a >0 constraint, and the roles of first_moment_q, inertia, and width in the V·Q/(I·b) formula, plus the mode values. It fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 physical quantity (횡전단응력 τ 계산) and enumerates the three calculation modes with their formulas, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like engineering.bending_stress and engineering.mech_stress.

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?

Gives explicit mode-selection criteria (rectangular_max requires area and applies to rectangular sections; general requires first_moment_q, inertia, width) and an exclusion: using rectangular_max on circular or I-sections is wrong. It stops short of routing to any sibling tool, but the internal when-to-use guidance is strong.

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