petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential file access permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid file paths or curve names), or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description covers purpose and parameters well. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance considerations, which would be beneficial for completeness.

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 provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: 'file_path' as an absolute path, 'curve_names' as a list of mnemonics with examples, and 'start_depth'/'end_depth' as optional filters. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Get specific curve data'), resource ('from a LAS file'), and scope ('with optional depth range filtering'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_curves' and 'read_las' by focusing on retrieving specific curves with filtering capabilities.

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 context by mentioning 'optional depth range filtering,' suggesting when to use this feature. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_curves' or 'read_las' from the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity.

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