read_glstat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavior: results are thinned to evenly spaced states, so the agent knows it is not getting full fidelity. It does not say how glstat is located from 'directory', what happens if no glstat exists, or whether resolution affects accuracy.

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 first sentence is dense and front-loaded with the useful behavior. The trailing 'Args: directory, max_states' line is pure restatement of the schema and earns no place, slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 return values need not be described. However, for a file-reading tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the directory parameter's meaning, missing-file behavior, and selection versus sibling readers unaddressed — adequate but with clear gaps.

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. The max_states semantics (maximum number of evenly spaced states retained) are genuinely clarified, but 'directory' is left ambiguous — whether it is a folder searched for glstat or a path to the file itself is unclear. The bare 'Args:' line adds nothing beyond parameter names.

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 action and resource: reading energy history from a glstat file, with downsampling to at most max_states states. The operation is identifiable, but it gives no hint how it differs from sibling readers like read_history_file, read_binout, or read_d3plot.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over the other history/result readers in the sibling list, and no preconditions such as the file needing to exist or the analysis having completed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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