Fracture Check

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the formula, the default geometry factor values for edge vs centre cracks, the material-derived K_IC with override option, and explicit pass/fail semantics via safety_factor and margin. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the core formula before parameter details and the return payload. Every clause contributes to correct invocation or interpretation; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so documenting the exact return fields and the pass/fail condition is essential and fully handled. The formula, parameter defaults, units, and result interpretation together give an agent everything needed to call and evaluate the tool correctly.

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 must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: σ is stress, a is crack length in mm, geometry_factor Y has documented defaults, and K_IC comes from material or override. Every parameter is given functional context beyond its name and type.

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: 'Rate brittle fracture (LEFM)' with the governing K vs K_IC comparison. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like fatigue_check or plastic_collapse, and the formula and return values leave no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

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 intended use is implied by the LEFM brittle-fracture framing, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related analysis tools such as fatigue_check, plastic_collapse, or bearing_life. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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