Load a crawl export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that loading makes the file the active dataset and that desktop exports differ in richness (depth, word count, content type) and have no page cap, which is useful behavioral context. It omits whether the load replaces existing data, what happens on malformed/unsupported JSON, and whether any auth or file-access requirements apply.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and source formats, followed by the one differentiating detail (desktop export richness). No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter ingestion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the accepted inputs and a meaningful difference between them. It is close to complete, though it could note replacement semantics or failure behavior on invalid files.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'path' as an absolute path to the .json file. The description adds source-format context that helps the agent pick the right file but adds no syntax beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (load) and resource (crawl export JSON from disk) and names the two accepted source formats with their producer tools. An agent can immediately tell this ingests an existing file rather than performing a crawl, distinguishing it from siblings like crawl_site.

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?

It identifies when the tool applies (when you have a desktop export or a crawlcove-cli JSON) and even gives a selection criterion between the two source formats (desktop exports have more per-page data, no page cap). But it never states when not to use it or explicitly contrasts it with crawl_site for agents who lack an export file.

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