plate_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it declares the analytic nature (no solver), the governing theory (Roark/Timoshenko thin-plate, ν=0.3), the applicability limits (thin_plate_ok span/t ≥ 10; small_deflection_ok δ ≤ t/2), and the escalation behavior when a limit trips. That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the schema mapped compactly. It is formula-dense but every detail (coefficient forms, flag thresholds, escalation target) earns its place for a no-annotation screening tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (sigma_max_mpa, deflection_max_mm, yield_safety_factor, thin_plate_ok, fidelity, escalate_to, etc.) and explains how to interpret them. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or act on its result is missing.

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 has to compensate and largely does: it maps shape values to their geometry inputs (a_mm × b_mm for rectangular, diameter_mm for circular), gives support values, and explains material vs youngs_gpa precedence plus that material supplies yield. thickness_mm and pressure_kpa are only implicitly covered, but their names are self-evident.

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 and resource ('handbook bending of a uniformly loaded flat plate') and frames the exact scope ('NO solver', 'do I need FEM at all? screen'). This immediately distinguishes it from the fem_* solver siblings such as fem_run and fem_buckling.

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?

Explicitly names both the decision it supports (FEM screening) and the alternative: a tripped validity flag means 'escalate to the CCX fem_* pipeline (escalate_to="fem_run")'. When-to-use and when-to-hand-off are both spelled out.

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