Beam deflection and stress

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

The description discloses the underlying theory (Euler-Bernoulli, linear-elastic, small-deflection) and the computed outputs. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does well, though it could mention output format or units 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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's complexity (multiple load cases, optional yield), the description covers the main outputs and theory. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error handling, but the outputs listed are sufficient for an engineering tool.

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 adds context like 'four standard loadings' and clarifies the load parameter units, but this largely overlaps with schema descriptions.

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 computes max deflection, bending moment, and stress for beams under four standard loadings, with optional factor of safety. It specifies the theory (Euler-Bernoulli, linear-elastic, small-deflection), distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_units or material_properties.

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 implies use for standard beam loadings but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools. However, the context of standard loadings and the sibling tools list makes usage clear.

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