petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool extracts metadata but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid file paths), output format details (though an output schema exists), or performance considerations (e.g., file size limits). This leaves gaps 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: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides essential parameter details. There is no redundant information, and every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 mostly complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or constraints, which would be beneficial despite the output schema.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'file_path' is an 'Absolute path to the LAS file,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. With only one parameter, this compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Extract'), resource ('well header metadata from a LAS file'), and scope ('well name, UWI, location, KB, TD, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_las' (which likely reads the entire file) and 'get_curves' (which likely extracts curve data rather than metadata).

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 specifying it extracts metadata from LAS files, which helps differentiate it from calculation or analysis tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for curve data extraction) or name alternatives like 'read_las' for broader file reading.

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