Summarize a reservoir simulation deck by extracting key details: phases, units, grid dimensions, wells, and schedule length, giving a quick overview of its structure.
High-level deck summary: phases, units, grid dimensions, wells, schedule length.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_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 behavioral disclosure. It only says what the summary includes; it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires a valid deck, how it handles errors, or any side effects. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for an agent.
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, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded main clause and a concise colon-separated list. Every word adds information and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 adequate for a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema available. However, it lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and path-format context, so an agent has to infer important details about when and how to call it.
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 deck_path beyond what the parameter name and schema title already imply. It does not clarify path format, expected file type, or the WSL/Windows path considerations hinted at by sibling tools like to_wsl_path and to_windows_path.
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 states a specific verb ('summary') and resource ('deck'), and enumerates the exact content covered: phases, units, grid dimensions, wells, schedule length. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like validate_deck or grid_info, so it stops short of a 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when a high-level summary is preferred over validate_deck, deck_text, or field_summary, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.