eurocode_column_checker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output variables (Ncr, slenderness, chi, NRd, utilisation) and the indicative, non-stamped nature. However, it does not mention assumptions, default parameter behavior, or what happens when required concrete parameters (depth, width, reinforcement) are omitted for RC materials. This leaves a noticeable gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a concise output list and a clear caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering the return values and scope. It is mostly complete for a calculation tool, though it could be enhanced by explicitly noting the different input requirements for steel versus concrete and by referencing sibling tools. Still, the essential context is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions that the check covers steel and RC, which maps indirectly to parameters like section vs depth/width. It does not explain parameter combinations or units, but the schema already provides these details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'axial column buckling check' under Eurocode, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like eurocode_beam_designer. It also names the applicable code sections (EC3 6.3.1, EC2 5.8) and material types (steel/RC), making the tool's function precise 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 clearly states the tool is for column buckling checks under Eurocode for steel and RC, which implies when to use it over beam design tools. It also includes an exclusion ('not a stamped design'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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