eurocode_beam_designer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the computational scope and adds the important limitation 'Indicative, not a stamped design,' which warns against over-trusting the output. It does not detail the return format, but for a calculation tool the description covers the key behavioral expectations.

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 three compact sentences with zero redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded, the computational outputs are listed in the second sentence, and the limitation comes last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains the type of calculation (ULS, SLS, fire protection) and the indicative nature, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the scope. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by enumerating the computed results, though it does not specify the exact response structure. Given the moderate complexity of the tool, this is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all nine parameters with names, types, and units. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general summary of what is computed. It does not clarify dependencies such as exposure being concrete-only or which parameters apply to steel vs. composite, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 'Preliminary Eurocode beam design' and explicitly lists the materials (steel EC3 / composite / reinforced concrete EC2), immediately distinguishing this from the sibling eurocode_column_checker. It also names specific outputs (selects a section, computes ULS bending & shear utilisation, SLS deflection, fire protection), making the tool's function 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 word 'Preliminary' and the explicit 'not a stamped design' clearly convey when the tool is appropriate and when it is not. It lacks an explicit pointer to an alternative or a direct 'use this when...' statement, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route correctly for beam calculations.

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