galbook_load

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: that the 'auto' slot is written at every choice. It says nothing about whether loading overwrites current progress, whether loading is reversible, what happens if the slot is empty, or what the tool returns, all of which matter for a state-mutating load.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than economy. The bilingual duplication ('/ 读档') adds characters without adding information for an agent.

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?

For a zero-annotation, mutation-style load with no output schema, the description should cover what state is restored, what happens to unsaved progress, and error behavior for missing slots. It covers none of this, leaving the agent to call a state-changing tool on inference alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents book, slot, and agent, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning by explaining the 'auto' value, which the schema already lists as an accepted slot, so it does not go meaningfully beyond structured fields.

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 gives a verb plus resource ('Load a slot'), which is specific enough to know it restores saved state, but it does not distinguish this from siblings like galbook_saves (listing saves) or galbook_rewind (stepping back), which an agent must choose between. The parenthetical about 'auto' narrows one slot value rather than clarifying the tool's overall role.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus galbook_saves, galbook_rewind, or galbook_new. The agent must infer that loading is the inverse of galbook_save by name similarity alone, and no prerequisites (e.g. book must exist, slot must have been saved) are mentioned.

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