load_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the save is re-validated piece by piece on load, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states the purpose, second adds behavioral detail. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and sibling tools provide context, the description is complete: it tells what, where, and a key behavior (re-validation). No gaps.

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 only parameter 'name' is enriched by the description's mention of 'by name' and reference to .json files in builds/, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic title. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 loads a previously saved build by name, referencing saved .json files in builds/. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like new_build or export_build.

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 tells users to look in builds/ for .json files, providing context for usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from alternatives.

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