load_type_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing types), requires a specific database mode, or if it can be performed multiple times. The behavior is implied as a simple load, but key safety and side-effect details are missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter. No excess or redundant language.

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 low parameter count (1) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return value), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that modifies the database environment, additional context about prerequisites, idempotency, or potential side effects would make it more complete. The sibling 'list_type_libraries' is not referenced.

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 input schema has only one string parameter ('path') with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the meaning that this 'path' should point to a '.til' file, which is the minimal clarification needed. However, it does not specify whether it should be an absolute path, relative to the database, or if 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 ('Load') and resource ('type information library (.til) file'), and indicates the action's target ('into the current database'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which are primarily for analysis, decompilation, debugging, and modification, not for loading library type information.

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. For instance, there is no mention of 'list_type_libraries' as a sibling to first list available libraries, nor when pre-loading a type library is necessary before decompilation or function type analysis. The description is purely functional with no usage context or exclusions.

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