extract_eclipse_problem_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (e.g., scans files, extracts data, reports errors) and the output format. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or any limitations (e.g., file size constraints), which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear sections (e.g., 'What It Does', 'Applications', 'Workflow'), making it easy to scan. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating tool purpose in multiple sections) and could be more concise by trimming less critical details without losing clarity.

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 complexity of the tool (simulation diagnostics), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, applications, and output format. However, it lacks details on potential errors or edge cases, which would enhance completeness for such a specialized tool.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'Path to PRT file and output options' in the Args section, which aligns with the 'filename' parameter in the schema. However, it does not detail the 'silent' parameter or provide additional semantic context beyond what is minimally implied, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('extract', 'parse', 'scans', 'identifies') and resources ('convergence problem cells', 'ECLIPSE/Intersect PRT files'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on simulation diagnostics and problem cell extraction, unlike the sibling tools which are primarily for fluid properties, calculations, and validation.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines through sections like 'Applications' (e.g., 'Convergence Debugging', 'Model QC', 'Performance Tuning', 'Numerical Stability') and 'Workflow' (a 5-step process). It clearly indicates when to use this tool—for analyzing simulation output files to debug issues—without needing to specify alternatives, as sibling tools serve different purposes (e.g., fluid property calculations).

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