swmm_continuity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (parse) without revealing side effects, error conditions, or performance implications. The agent cannot know if the operation is read-only, what happens on missing data, or any authentication needs. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it omits critical parameter semantics, which makes it less effective despite its brevity. A conciseness score of 3 reflects that it is not wasteful but fails to deliver essential information efficiently.

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 tool has only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify the parameter's meaning, return format, or edge cases. The agent lacks sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge of SWMM .rpt files.

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 compensate by explaining the 'rpt' parameter. The description mentions 'SWMM .rpt' but does not clarify whether the parameter expects a file path, file content, or a reference. The agent cannot infer the expected format (string could be path, base64, or raw text) from the description alone.

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's function: parsing Runoff Quantity and Flow Routing continuity tables from a SWMM .rpt file. The verb 'Parse' combined with the specific resource 'continuity tables' makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (swmm_compare, swmm_peak, swmm_run) which handle different operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, without mentioning prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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