read_las

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool parses and returns a summary, but lacks details on error handling, file size limits, or read-only nature. This is adequate for a simple parse tool but could be improved.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clearly defines the only parameter. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The description mentions output ('header info and curve data summary') but is vague. Since an output schema exists but is not shown, the description should more precisely describe the return format to be fully complete. For a single-parameter tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 schema by specifying 'Absolute path' and 'LAS file', which are not in the schema title. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is valuable, though it could also mention that the file must exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('LAS 2.0 well log file') and states the output ('header info and curve data summary'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly calculation or analysis functions, not file parsing.

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 when to use (when needing to parse a LAS 2.0 file) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No sibling tools perform the same function, so differentiation is less critical.

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