compute_neutral_axis

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses output formats (midplane/bottom/ζ), behavior for symmetric laminates, and references axis_definition for assumptions. This is transparent for a compute 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?

Description is concise, uses bullet points for clarity, starts with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description explains modes and output but omits details about the laminate parameter structure. User may need external knowledge to provide correct input.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining mode options with formulas, but does not elaborate on the laminate object structure, which is required and has additionalProperties. Partial compensation.

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 calculates neutral axis position, specifies two modes with explanations, and describes the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on neutral axis computation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The context implies it's for structural analysis, but no when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions. Usage is implied by the task domain.

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