petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists curves with units and descriptions. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths), or output format details. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, with the first sentence stating the purpose clearly. The Args section is concise but adds necessary parameter details. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more integrated (e.g., merging description and Args).

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines, which are important despite the output schema covering return values.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'file_path' by specifying it as an 'Absolute path to the LAS file', which clarifies beyond the schema's generic 'File Path' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this effectively compensates, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., file extensions).

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all curves in a LAS file'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_curve_values' (which retrieves values) and 'read_las' (which reads the entire file). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_curve_values' or 'read_las'. The description implies usage for listing curves with metadata, but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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