Checks reservoir material balance from a simulation case path, computing OOIP, recovery factor, oil mass-balance drift, and surface VRR to identify inconsistencies.
Field MB QC: OOIP, recovery factor, exact oil mass-balance drift, surface VRR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It does reveal the kind of quantities the tool handles, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes files, which inputs it reads, or how 'exact oil mass-balance drift' is determined.
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 very short and has no filler words, which is good for conciseness. However, it leans too heavily on cryptic abbreviations and omits information an agent needs, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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 presence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral detail. For an agent selecting among a large set of reservoir and simulation tools, this description is not sufficient to use the tool confidently.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter, case_path, with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention case_path at all, nor does it clarify what kind of path is expected or how it relates to the material balance calculations.
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 the domain ('Field MB QC') and lists specific outputs (OOIP, recovery factor, oil mass-balance drift, surface VRR), which distinguishes it from many sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'computes', 'checks', or 'reports', and is heavy on acronyms, so the core action is only implied rather than stated.
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 phrase 'Field MB QC' implies this is a field-level material-balance quality check, but the description never states when to use this tool instead of closely related siblings like field_summary, read_summary, or compare_summaries. There is no mention of prerequisites such as having a valid case_path, a completed simulation, or restart data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.