beam_buckling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the method (exact Euler + Johnson, no solver), the transition mechanic at √(2π²E/σ_y), that the safety factor is returned when load_n is given, and enumerates the return payload including fidelity, band_pct, valid_range_ok and warnings. It does not state failure modes or what invalid/out-of-range inputs produce, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core identity and the no-solver distinction come first, then input modes, then the return shape. Telegraphic style packs a lot into few sentences, though the mid-paragraph formula details are slightly heavy for a description.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description supplies the return field list, the escalation path, and the physics governing the computation, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: length_mm and precise behavior on out-of-valid-range inputs are not spelled out.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps the three section input modes (width_mm+height_mm, diameter_mm, area_mm2+i_min_mm4), the material-property sources (youngs_gpa/yield_mpa or a Materials-DB material), the four end_condition values, and the role of load_n. The required length_mm is only implied, not explicitly explained.

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 ('Exact column-buckling screen (Euler + Johnson, NO solver)') and immediately positions itself against the sibling eigen-solve tool fem_buckling, including the analogy to beam_modal/fem_modal. An agent can distinguish it from fem_buckling without opening either schema.

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 an explicit escalation rule: 'Escalate to `fem_buckling` for non-prismatic / eccentric / built-up cases', which is a clear when-not/alternative condition. It also implies when-to-use by framing itself as the closed-form screen the FEM solve is gated against.

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