pddl_init_from_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool initializes a session and reads files, which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention what happens if files are invalid or missing, or whether it resets any existing session state. Still, the core behavior is well described and not contradictory.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, followed immediately by usage guidance. No wasted words—every part earns its place.

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 two simple string parameters (paths) and no output or nested objects, the description covers the essential: what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the sibling. It does not explain the return value, but since there is no output schema, this is an acceptable omission for a session-initialization 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%, meaning both parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional details beyond what the schema provides (the meaning of domain_path and problem_path is self-explanatory from their names and descriptions). With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Initialize' and the resource 'PDDL exploration session'. It also specifies the mechanism ('by reading domain and problem from files'), which precisely distinguishes this tool from its sibling pddl_init.

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 tells when to use this tool ('when the PDDL definitions are available as files') and when not to ('instead of pddl_init'). It also provides a clear rationale ('to avoid duplicating large strings in the conversation'), making the decision easy for the AI.

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