lisp_load_macro

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. It states that the macro is loaded and executed but does not mention potential side effects on the drawing, authorization requirements, or the implications of running arbitrary LISP code.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's 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 that this tool loads and executes code, the description lacks important context about side effects and fails to differentiate it from lisp_execute_code or system_run_lisp. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone is insufficient for safe and correct tool selection.

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 schema provides no description for file_path (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying that the parameter is an external .lsp AutoLISP macro file, but it leaves out path format, resolution, or validation details.

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 identifies the action ('Load and execute') and the target resource ('external .lsp AutoLISP macro file'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like lisp_execute_code or system_run_lisp.

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 implies usage when an external .lsp file path is available, but it gives no explicit guidance on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives. Siblings such as lisp_execute_code and system_run_lisp exist, leaving the agent to infer the file-based distinction.

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