grid_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Static grid info' suggests a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything or describe any data-source quirks or performance considerations. The behavioral profile is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 entire description is one short sentence that front-loads the tool type and immediately lists the specific information returned. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a single self-explanatory parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. However, it omits any usage context, such as prerequisites or relationship to sibling tools, and does not clarify what 'porosity/permeability stats' means precisely. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for better guidance.

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 says nothing about case_path or how it should be provided. The parameter name and type schema give some minimal meaning, but the description fails to add any extra semantic context, such as requiring a path to an existing case or accepting WSL/Windows paths.

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 specifies the resource (grid) and concrete outputs (dimensions, active count, porosity/permeability stats). It is clear but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling data-read tools.

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 word 'static' implies this tool is for structural grid metadata rather than dynamic results, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as field_summary or list_wells. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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