list_wells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does clarify that only wells declared at the first schedule step are listed, which is useful behavioral scoping. But it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, how it handles missing or invalid deck paths, or what the returned list format will be.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key scope qualifier 'at the first schedule step' is included without bloat.

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 tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, the absence of usage alternatives and the lack of any behavioral notes beyond scoping leave moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right 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%, and the description does not explain the deck_path parameter beyond implicitly connecting it to 'the deck'. The parameter is simple and self-titled, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wells declared in the deck'), and adds a scope qualifier ('at the first schedule step') that helps distinguish it from generic well-listing operations. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like well_summary, but the resource and scope are clear enough to infer its purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the set of wells defined in the deck at the initial schedule step. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better fit for dynamic well output or summary data.

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