Vulcan Block Model Operations (.bmf)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read-only tool. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: required model for info/query_xyz/stats, optional variables for coordinate queries, and the nature of stats outputs including volume-weighted mean and cutoff summary.

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 compact and front-loaded, and the action list is easy to scan. Every action entry adds operational information without waste.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what each action returns or does. It could be richer about model path/file naming and exact return shapes, but it covers the essentials needed to select and invoke the right action.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well by mapping model, x/y/z, variables, variable, cutoff, density, and select to their relevant actions, though select and density could use more precise semantics.

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 states a specific resource (Vulcan block models, .bmf) and specific operations (inspect, query, list, stats). The action breakdown makes the tool's scope clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling Vulcan tools beyond the block-model domain.

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?

Each action has clear context: list for files, info for metadata, query_xyz for coordinate lookups, and stats for grade-tonnage summaries. It does not explicitly say when to prefer or avoid sibling tools, but the per-action guidance is strong.

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