get_curves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) without side effects, but does not disclose what happens on file errors (e.g., file not found, invalid LAS format). It is minimally acceptable for a simple query tool but lacks detail on error conditions or edge cases.

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 very short (one sentence plus parameter doc) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidelines without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficiently complete to understand the basic function. However, it lacks guidance on typical use cases, error handling, or relation to other tools. It is minimally viable.

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 specifies 'file_path: Absolute path to the LAS file.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'File Path' label. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source, but it lacks details like file format restrictions, path delimiters, or validity requirements. It is adequate but not helpful.

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 'List all curves in a LAS file with their units and descriptions.' It specifies a specific action (list), resource (curves in a LAS file), and what is returned (units and descriptions). This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like get_curve_values (which retrieve actual data) and get_header (which retrieves LAS file header).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_curve_values or get_header. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not conditions, or recommend alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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