analyze_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details computational outputs but does not disclose side effects, file format requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. This is adequate but could be improved.

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 concise with a clear opening line, bulleted outputs, and parameter definitions. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and outputs. Minor gaps include file format expectations and behavioral context, but overall sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: file_path is an absolute path to a CSV, well_name is an optional filter. This compensates well beyond the schema's bare types.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes production trends and detects specific anomalies (shut-ins, rate jumps, water breakthrough, GOR blowouts). It lists computed outputs like per-well water cut trend and oil decline rate, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fit_decline or query_production.

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 usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like decline curve fitting or production queries. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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