pipe_wall_thickness

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency, but it only says 'check' without disclosing whether it calculates required thickness, returns pass/fail, uses schedule data, or has side effects. This is a substantial gap for an engineering calculation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, naming the relevant standard. However, it is too sparse to be considered well-structured for an 8-parameter tool, omitting essential context that should accompany such a calculation.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the 8-parameter complexity and absence of annotations are not addressed. The description does not explain the calculation basis, assumptions, or how inputs relate, making it incomplete for an engineering tool of this scope.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., design_pressure_mpa, coefficient_y, weld_joint_efficiency). It mentions 'schedule' but leaves the agent to infer the meaning and units of all inputs from names alone.

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 ('check'), a resource ('wall'), the governing standard ('ASME B31.1'), and a scope ('against a selected schedule'), which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like pipe_size_select. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether it computes minimum required thickness or validates an existing wall thickness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios. The description only states the function without helping the agent choose between this and sibling tools such as pipe_size_select or dp_segment_liquid.

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