autoload_add

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing autoloads, validates paths, or requires specific permissions. The return value is vague ('Success message or error description').

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 concisely structured with a clear heading, category, args, and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the description covers basic functionality and parameter roles, it lacks context on conflict handling (e.g., if autoload already exists) and does not reference sibling tools. The output schema exists but is not detailed in the description, though the return is mentioned.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args:' section provides meaningful semantics for each parameter, explaining 'project_path' as the project directory, 'name' as the global access name, and 'script_path' as relative path.

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 'Add' and the resource 'autoload singleton', distinguishing it from siblings like 'autoload_list' and 'autoload_remove'. The category 'Autoload' further groups it.

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 through the category but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'autoload_remove' or 'autoload_list', nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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