get_header

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

The description indicates a read operation ('extract') but lacks explicit behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or permission requirements. With no annotations, the description partially carries this burden.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no filler, front-loaded with purpose and parameter details. Every sentence adds 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?

Though an output schema exists, the description lists expected output fields, making it sufficiently complete. Could mention that output is structured metadata, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains the parameter file_path as 'Absolute path to the LAS file', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's title alone.

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 extracts well header metadata from a LAS file, listing specific fields (well name, UWI, location, KB, TD). It distinguishes from siblings like read_las and get_curves by focusing on header data.

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 extracting header info but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., read_las, get_curves) or provide exclusions.

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