lira_read_loads

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring it safe, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the load record structure, LIRA type codes, direction codes, and units reference. It does not describe filtering behavior or how load_cases affects the result, but it substantially improves transparency beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, then it efficiently lists the load fields and code meanings. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for explaining a coded text export.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the description explains load record fields, it leaves the two input parameters completely unexplained. For a tool whose filtering behavior depends on load_cases, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 does not explain either parameter. It never says what 'model' expects or what 'load_cases' filters, so the two invocation parameters remain undocumented in both structured and natural-language form.

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 and resource: reading loads of a model from LIRA's text export. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as lira_set_loads, lira_fragment_loads, or lira_read_table.

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 retrieval but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and context when this tool is appropriate versus lira_read_table or lira_fragment_loads.

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