Beam Modal

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

With annotations limited to readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure and does it well. It supplies the governing formula, confirms a closed-form no-solver computation, states which dimension the beam bends in, lists supported boundary cases, explains the theoretical limit, and enumerates the exact return keys.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, formula, geometry, boundary/material inputs, theory validity, and return shape. Significant information is front-loaded, and the formatting with backticks and the formula makes it scannable for an agent.

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 tool with no output schema and a bare input schema, the description supplies the necessary physics, valid parameter values, boundary condition set, material input paths, and exact output contract. An agent can select, invoke, and interpret beam_modal without further tool definitions.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning, and it does: the formula ties length, width, height, Young's modulus, and density together; it explains material selection (youngs_gpa+density_kg_m3 or a Materials-DB material), enumerates boundary values, and describes the results including slenderness. n_modes is only implied via 'up to 5 modes each,' but this is a minor gap in an otherwise complete compensation.

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 opens with a precise claim: exact Euler-Bernoulli natural frequencies of a uniform rectangular beam, and frames it as a closed-form modal oracle with no solver. It also names fem_modal as the eigen-solve it gates, plus boundary conditions, material modes, and the bending axis, so purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly references the CalculiX fem_modal eigen-solve as the tool this oracle validates against, giving the agent a decision context. It also states the validity boundary (slender-beam theory requires length ≫ height; thick beams need Timoshenko correction), though it stops short of a direct 'use this instead of X when...' routing statement.

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