rft_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds relevant behavior: the data source (CASE.RFT), the WRFTPLT prerequisite, and the 1-based cell indexing convention. It stops short of describing filtering behavior for date/well or failure modes, but 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?

Two short paragraphs front-load the core definition and then deliver purpose, prerequisite, and coordinate convention with no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a data-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers source, purpose, prerequisite, and coordinate convention. The main gap is the meaning and behavior of the optional date/well filters, which are necessary for correct invocation.

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 but it only indirectly hints that case_path points to the case, and says nothing about date or well formats, meaning of null, or filtering semantics. The 1-based indexing note refers to returned cell data, not the input parameters.

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?

States clearly that the tool returns RFT surveys (pressure vs depth at well connections) from CASE.RFT, and gives the intended QC use case. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling data-access tools like read_summary or well_summary.

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?

Gives an explicit use context (perforation-pressure/gradient QC) and a hard prerequisite (WRFTPLT in the SCHEDULE section). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear and operational.

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