create_inp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the produced .inp is a 'minimal data container (no model structure)' and lists the return value. However, it omits potential behavioral details like whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, or how invalid data is handled. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a usage paragraph, a clear parameter list, and a returns section. Every part is informative and necessary, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers all six parameters with explanations, provides usage context relative to the entire guided workflow, and defines the return value. For a file-creation tool of this complexity, it is fully complete even without the output schema.

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%, and the description fully compensates by detailing every parameter with examples and valid values (e.g., freq mapping 1=annual, 4=quarterly, 12=monthly). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Create a .inp file from raw time series data.' It also explicitly marks it as the FIRST tool to call for spreadsheet/CSV data, distinguishing it from siblings that handle existing .inp files or later workflow steps.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'when the user provides data from a spreadsheet, CSV, or any source other than an existing .inp file.' This effectively includes an exclusion for existing .inp files, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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