read_las

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

The description discloses that it parses a file and returns a summary, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on error handling, file validation, or any side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with two sentences: one for purpose and one for parameter. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.

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 simplicity (single parameter), the description adequately covers its purpose and inputs. The existence of an output schema (though not shown) likely handles return value details. However, it could briefly mention what 'curve data summary' entails for completeness.

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?

While the schema only lists 'file_path' as a string with title 'File Path', the description adds critical context: the path must be absolute and the file must be a LAS file. This meaningfully supplements the schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 parses LAS 2.0 well log files and returns header info and curve data summary. This specific verb-resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform calculations or retrieve specific subsets of 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_curves or get_header. The description only specifies the argument, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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