Retrieve per-layer statistics for dynamic reservoir properties like pressure or saturation at a chosen report step, with configurable histogram binning for analysis.
Per-layer stats for a dynamic property (PRESSURE/SWAT/SGAS/SOIL) at a report step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | PRESSURE | |
| case_path | Yes | ||
| report_step | No | ||
| n_histogram_bins | No |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates this is an analysis/read-oriented tool that produces per-layer stats, and it names the supported dynamic properties. However, it does not disclose edge cases, failure modes, or whether any state is modified, though the output schema covers return structure.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It front-loads the core concept, though the conciseness comes at the cost of omitting useful parameter context.
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 is too sparse for a 4-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions and no annotations. It does not define what statistics are computed, how the histogram bin count affects results, how report_step is interpreted, or how case_path is used. The output schema helps with return values but not with input semantics.
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 does clarify keyword options (PRESSURE/SWAT/SGAS/SOIL) and hints at report_step significance, but n_histogram_bins and case_path are entirely unexplained, and the meaning of 'per-layer stats' is too vague to guide parameter choices.
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 identifies the resource (dynamic property at a report step) and the produced result (per-layer stats), and names the relevant property kinds. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like restart_info or plot_property_map, though it lacks an explicit verb.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites such as having a restart file, how report_step interacts with restart data, or when the default behavior is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.