mnova_process_1d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output behavior ('export auditable spectrum artifacts'), which adds some transparency. However, it omits details about side effects, prerequisites, or whether the input file is modified, so it is only partially transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and provides no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise.

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 presence of an output schema and multiple parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the processing workflow, what 'auditable spectrum artifacts' are, or how the optional parameters affect execution. The output schema covers return values, but the overall context is incomplete.

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 needed to compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions no details about input_path, output_dir, or processing_template_path beyond what the schema field names imply. The term 'processing_template_path' in particular remains unexplained.

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 processes 1D NMR data with Mnova and exports auditable spectrum artifacts, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mnova_prepare_structure_1d or mnova_apply_assignments_1d, so it falls just 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but there is no comparative context, leaving the agent without direction for alternative selection.

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