Summarize Output File

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 that the tool parses the saved file without COM dependency, states the default column behavior (last column as model output), and explains the file column convention. It doesn't explicitly claim non-destructiveness, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'reduce result to numbers.'

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?

Three short paragraphs, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, usage context, and parameter/file-format detail. The core intent is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, file format, and parameter behavior. It could mention error handling (e.g., missing file), but that's not critical for an agent to call it correctly. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for a summarization tool.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents `path` and `column`. The description adds context about the file format (column 0 = time, 1..n = values) and clarifies the default column selection, which slightly enhances understanding but doesn't add critical semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource — "Reduce calculation result to numbers: range, min/max, average, slope." — and immediately distinguishes itself from `read_output_file`, which returns raw lines. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from its closest sibling.

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 explicitly names `read_output_file` as the alternative and explains when to use the summary instead: checking whether the curve hit expectations is easier with a compact summary than scanning hundreds of lines. It also notes the tool works without COM, which is a strong usage hint for environments lacking SimInTech.

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