insanitii_save_load_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Verify' in PIE. It does not disclose that the tool likely launches/stops a PIE session according to wait_seconds and stop_after_probe, whether it mutates or saves state, or what side effects the probe may have.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful KB reference. The example line is slightly redundant with the function name but harmless; no filler or unnecessary detail exists.

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?

The description names what is verified and points to a KB section, and an output schema exists to describe results. However, with no annotations and no parameter semantics, an agent cannot fully understand how to invoke the tool beyond calling it with defaults or know when it should be used over sibling reports.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanations for mode, wait_seconds, or stop_after_probe. The example call uses no arguments, so an agent cannot tell what values are meaningful or how each parameter affects the verification.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('the Insanitii demo save/load skeleton') with exact restore fields ('day, cash, and mental state') and environment ('PIE'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the many other insanitii_*_report siblings by its save/load focus, even though no alternative is named explicitly.

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 when to use the tool: when verifying save/load restoration in PIE. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling report to prefer instead, such as insanitii_phase3_pie_runtime_report or insanitii_world_reactivity_report.

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