eurocode_beam_designer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Indicative, not a stamped design' which sets expectations about authority, and it outlines the computations performed. This is sufficient for a calculation tool with no side effects, though it could mention read-only behavior explicitly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key capabilities and a caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview: scope, materials, calculations, and caveat. It does not describe return values, but the calculations listed are sufficient to infer outputs.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention general capabilities (e.g., material types, section selection) that align with parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Preliminary Eurocode beam design (steel EC3 / composite / reinforced concrete EC2)' with specific actions (selects section, computes ULS bending/shear, SLS deflection, fire protection). It distinguishes itself from sibling eurocode_column_checker by specifying 'beam design' and material options.

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 signals appropriate usage via 'Preliminary' and 'Indicative, not a stamped design,' providing clear context for when to use (early-stage design) and when not to use (final stamping). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context implies this is for preliminary checks only.

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