estimate_structural_load

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the load_across_layers parameter's effect on capacity derating but omits the output format, algorithm assumptions, or limitations. It adds value beyond parameter names but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 description is concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 description explains parameters well but omits critical context: the output format (units, whether it's max load or factor), error handling for invalid materials, and underlying assumptions. For a structural load tool, these gaps reduce completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It provides clear explanations for all four parameters, including examples for material, units for dimensions, and a detailed rationale for load_across_layers. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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?

The description states the tool estimates safe structural load for a cantilevered section, a specific engineering task. It distinguishes from broader analysis tools like analyze_structural_risks or assess_load_bearing by focusing on a single cantilevered section.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assess_load_bearing or analyze_structural_risks. It only describes the tool's functionality without exclusions or context.

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