scan_keyword_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that *INCLUDE directives are followed so a split deck is scanned as a whole, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, how large decks are handled, or error behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then the important INCLUDE behavior, then a short args list. Efficient with no filler, though the trailing "Args: path, follow_includes" adds little beyond the schema.

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 explained. The description covers purpose and the key INCLUDE-following behavior; the main gap is absence of any routing versus overlapping sibling audit tools.

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 explains follow_includes implicitly through the INCLUDE-following sentence, but the false case is not described, and 'path' gets no meaning beyond its name (e.g., relative vs absolute, .k vs .key).

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 and resource ("Summarise a .k/.key file") plus the scope of the summary (keyword counts, missing essentials such as termination, d3plot output, timestep control). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like audit_deck or presolve_check.

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 implied: scan a deck to get a summary and spot missing essentials. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as audit_deck or presolve_check, which overlap heavily with "missing essentials".

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