read_postprocessing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return profile (statistics and an optional plot), which is useful context, but does not disclose sampling details, sizes, or error behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the data families and return extras trailing. No wasted clauses, though the parenthetical list is slightly dense.

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?

A read-only tool whose safety is carried by annotations and whose parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description's note about statistics and optional plotting gives the agent enough to know what comes back, despite there being no output schema.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema itself (including max_rows sampling and plot). The description's mention of 'optional plot' adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (postProcessing table) and enumerates the data family it covers (forces, coefficients, probes, sampled lines). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_postprocessing, which only enumerates paths.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'path' schema mentions list_postprocessing as the source of the path, hinting at a list-then-read workflow. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it distinguish this from sibling read_file.

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