swmm_peak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool parses from a .rpt file, but does not reveal error behavior (e.g., node not found), whether it modifies files, or required file structure. Critical missing details for a parse tool.

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 very concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value 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?

For a simple parse tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could include details on expected .rpt format (e.g., SWMM 5 output) or behavior on missing node. It covers essentials but lacks robustness.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'rpt' is the SWMM .rpt file, 'node' is the node/outfall name, and it must be supplied. This clarifies the purpose beyond the bare parameter names, though format or constraints are not specified.

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 explicitly states that the tool parses peak flow and time-of-peak from a SWMM .rpt file for a specific node/outfall. It is clear and specific, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like swmm_compare or swmm_run beyond the action.

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 mentions that the node name must be supplied, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., swmm_run for simulation, swmm_compare for comparisons) or when not to use it.

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