calc_beam

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds value by detailing the outputs (I, deflection, moment, stress, safety factor) and the mathematical model used (Euler-Bernoulli), as well as limitations (no shear, buckling). This provides behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with core purpose. It packs significant detail but lacks bullet points or clear separation of input/output sections, which marginally reduces readability. Still, it is efficient without fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main inputs, supported cases and sections, units, and outputs. It mentions the return values. However, it does not include an example or explicitly map dims_mm keys for each section type, which would enhance completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partly by explaining case types, section geometries, units, and the default E value. However, it does not explicitly describe all parameters (e.g., load_n, udl_n_mm) or clarify that dims_mm keys depend on the section type. The explanation is helpful but incomplete.

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 clearly states it performs Euler-Bernoulli beam bending analysis for first-cut design. It lists supported cases (cantilever_point, etc.) and section types (rect, round, tube), making it distinct from sibling tools like calc_fits or calc_fastener. The explicit mention of what it does not include further differentiates it.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool for simple beam bending and explicitly excludes shear deflection, buckling, and stress concentration, implying those are not computed. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this for first-cut estimates' or mention alternative tools for advanced cases, which would improve guidance.

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