read_d3plot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: discloses the lasso-python dependency, the non-finite count as a blow-up signal, vector-magnitude and von Mises handling (worst integration point), and the max_states cap of 20. It omits error behavior when lasso-python is missing and any permission/read-only framing.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and modes, and the Args line is compact. It is dense to the point of being run-on (parentheticals, ellipsis in the field list), but nearly every clause adds information.

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, yet the description still usefully previews the return shape (stats, extremum id, non-finite count). For a 4-param read tool this is nearly complete; only directory format and failure/dependency handling are unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate; it documents field (with enum-like examples), state (-1 = spread), and max_states (at most 20). The 'directory' parameter is only listed, not explained (path to the d3plot directory?), leaving one gap.

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+resource ('Field results from the d3plot') and precisely describes what is computed: min/max/mean, id of extremum, non-finite count, with vector magnitude and von Mises treatment. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling summarize_d3plot, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear mode selection: 'With no field it lists fields stored' vs 'With a field ... it returns ...', plus state=-1 meaning spread. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. summarize_d3plot) or when-not to use it, so no explicit routing.

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