petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (parsing LAS 2.0 files and returning summaries) but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid file paths or malformed LAS files), performance characteristics, or format specifics of the returned summary. It states what the tool does but not how it behaves in edge cases or what the output structure looks like beyond 'header info and curve data summary'.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter explanation. Both sentences earn their place by providing necessary information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses minimal words to convey the essential details.

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 (parsing a specialized file format), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and output type. However, it could improve by mentioning LAS 2.0 specifics or linking to sibling tools for deeper data access, making it slightly less than fully comprehensive for the context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation of the single parameter 'file_path' as 'Absolute path to the LAS file,' which adds essential meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., whether paths must be local or can be URLs) or validation rules, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Parse a LAS 2.0 well log file') and the outcome ('return header info and curve data summary'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform calculations, analyses, or queries rather than file parsing. The verb 'parse' is precise and the resource 'LAS 2.0 well log file' is well-defined.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for parsing LAS files, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for non-LAS files) or mention alternatives like 'get_header' or 'get_curves' which might retrieve similar data from already-parsed sources. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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