lammps_file_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool identifies file type and returns summary statistics, making the read-only nature implicit. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid files, format limitations, or performance considerations, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the purpose. The second sentence adds useful detail about the returned statistics, and the Args section is minimal. Every sentence earns its place without 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 the simple single-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the supported file types (dump or thermo) and the main statistics returned. It could be improved by clarifying when to choose this summary tool over the sibling parse tools, but overall it satisfies the main needs.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args section explaining that filepath is the path to the LAMMPS output file. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 'filepath' property in the schema, though it does not detail accepted extensions or data formats.

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 ('Get a summary') and resource ('LAMMPS output file (dump or thermo)'), and lists exactly what statistics it returns. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling parse tools by focusing on summary rather than full parsing.

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 usage when a summary of a LAMMPS output file is needed, but it does not explicitly compare this to the sibling parse tools (e.g., lammps_parse_thermo, lammps_parse_dump) or state when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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