Press Fit Stress

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description far exceeds that by detailing the linear dependence on E, the material override, the three-state pass, the unperformed yield check for materials without yield data, and the explicit warning to test `pass is True` rather than truthiness. It also names the specific output keys. This fully discloses behavioral traits for edge cases and error handling, going well beyond what annotations convey.

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 carries necessary information — formulas, material handling, pass semantics, output keys. It front-loads the core purpose and formula, then layers edge-case logic. No filler or redundancy. For a complex engineering analysis tool, this length is justified and well-organized.

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 all returned fields and explains the three-state pass and error conditions. It covers material data dependencies, override behavior, and the units convention for interference. Complete for an analysis tool of this complexity; an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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. It clarifies that interference_mm is diametral, explains how youngs_modulus_mpa overrides the material's modulus, and connects material to the Materials-DB card. However, it does not explicitly map formula variables (ro, rc) to shaft_dia_mm and hub_outer_dia_mm, though the names are self-explanatory. The non-obvious parameter semantics are addressed, so it earns a 4.

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 verb and resource: 'Rate an interference (press/shrink) fit via Lamé.' It names the theory and the specific calculation, and the formula distinguishes it from siblings like hertz_contact or bolted_joint_check. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 makes the tool's domain obvious (press/shrink fit stress analysis) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It gives clear context — e.g., 'interference_mm is diametral' and material behavior — but no exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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