xvg_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the output shape well (per-column min/max/mean/stdev/first/last plus title and axis labels), which tells the agent what to expect. It omits any mention of error behavior for malformed files or how columns are labeled, but the operation is transparently a read-only 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?

One front-loaded sentence (with a colon-delimited output list) that wastes nothing. The enumeration of output fields is slightly dense but all of it earns its place by previewing the return content.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values in detail, and the task is a simple single-param read. The scope and output preview make it complete enough for correct invocation, with only the lack of routing guidance against siblings as a minor gap.

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?

The single parameter (xvg_path) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying it accepts 'any GROMACS .xvg file' clarifies the argument's nature but adds no format, path, or resolution detail beyond the self-evident name.

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 (Summarize) and a precise resource (GROMACS .xvg files), and enumerates the input variety (RMSD, energies, temperature, SASA). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like plot_xvg (visualizes) and rmsd_summary (domain-specific), and it even lists the exact statistics produced.

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: 'Summarize any GROMACS .xvg file' tells the agent this handles generic xvg inputs, but it never states when to prefer this over rmsd_summary or plot_xvg, nor any preconditions. No explicit when/when-not guidance is offered.

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