create_continuous_beam_bridge

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

Annotations describe a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description's 'creates' claim is consistent with them (no contradiction). The description adds some behavioral context: it is a composite one-step operation that auto-generates supports (fixed at piers, movable at ends) and a self-weight load case, and requires pre-existing material/section. However, it does not disclose repeated-call consequences, duplicate naming behavior, or what happens when prerequisites are unmet.

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 content is logically ordered and the main action is front-loaded, and the Args block earns its place given zero schema coverage. However, every statement is duplicated verbatim in Chinese, roughly doubling length without adding information for an English-reading agent, which is avoidable bulk.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema, composite bridge-creation tool, the description explains what model geometry is generated, the support conditions, the load case, and key prerequisites. Gaps remain: no stated return value, no behavior on repeated calls, and the spans example's '均匀布置' (uniformly arranged) wording is slightly inconsistent with the non-uniform [30, 50, 30] values it illustrates.

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 its Args section compensates well: spans gets units (meters) plus a concrete example ([30.0, 50.0, 30.0] = 3-span), num_elements_per_span and self_weight_case get plain-language meaning, and material_name/section_name get the 'must already exist' precondition. It only lacks finer constraints such as a minimum span count or ordering rules.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "One-step creation of a continuous beam bridge model," and elaborates the structural configuration (multi-span continuous beam, fixed supports at piers, movable supports at ends). This implicitly differentiates it from the sibling create_simple_beam_bridge, but it never names that alternative or states the difference explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for multi-span continuous beam models as opposed to simple beam models among the siblings. It discloses prerequisites inside the parameter docs (material and section must already exist, '须已创建'), which is useful gate-keeping, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance and no stated exclusions.

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