fracture_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the underlying formula, default behavior for geometry_factor, material-based or override K_IC, how critical crack length is computed, and the meaning of SF<1 and margin<0. This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only or any side effects (there likely are none for a computation, but that isn't explicit).

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 front-loads the core purpose, formula, parameter definitions, and return fields in a compact multi-sentence block. It is efficient for the information density, though the return field list makes it slightly long; every sentence is relevant.

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 computational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers formula, parameter semantics, defaults, critical crack definition, and output keys. It is nearly complete; the only minor gap is explicit mention that the tool is non-mutating and requires no authentication, which is likely inferable.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains units and meaning of a (crack length in mm), Y (geometry_factor, with defaults 1.12 edge and 1.0 centre), and K_IC (from material or override). It also clarifies that stress_mpa and crack_len_mm are the required inputs by usage context. This adds far more meaning than the bare schema titles.

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: rate brittle fracture using LEFM with the K = Y·σ·√(π·a) formula, and gives the exact governing equation and pass criterion. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like fatigue_check, plate_check, or fem_buckling by naming the specific fracture mechanics method and output fields.

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 implies when to use it (need to assess whether a crack will propagate vs. K_IC) through the formula and pass/margin semantics, and it specifies default geometry factors for edge vs. centre cracks. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for fatigue or other failure modes, but the LEFM context is clear enough without exclusions.

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