read_lst_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Parse' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this, nor does it disclose error handling (missing files), performance characteristics, or the structure/format of the returned data.

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?

Single sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with action and target, followed by a precise comma-separated list of extracted data points. Every word serves a specific purpose.

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 single parameter and simple input structure, the description adequately covers inputs. For outputs (no output schema provided), it compensates by listing the specific data fields returned (termination status, warnings, etc.), giving the agent clear expectations of what information will be available.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Path to the .lst file'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description mentions '.lst file' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantics regarding path format (absolute/relative), file encoding, or existence requirements. Baseline score appropriate for high schema 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?

Specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('NONMEM .lst file') clearly identified. The enumerated outputs (termination status, minimization success, shrinkage, condition number, warnings) precisely distinguish this from siblings like read_ext_file, read_nm_tables, or parse_control_stream by specifying the exact file type and data extracted.

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 specific outputs listed imply usage for checking run completion and quality metrics, providing implicit context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_run_results or parse_psn_results, and states no prerequisites (e.g., run completion status).

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