aurora_load_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses verification behavior (SHA-256 and Ed25519) and the summary return values. However, it does not state what happens when verification fails, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects, which are important for a file-loading tool.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and verification requirement, then gives usage context, then return values. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and return values, but omits failure handling and the behavior of the 'verify' parameter. An agent calling this tool would still need to infer the effect of verify=false, which is a notable 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%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'path' points to the bundle file, but it does not explain the 'verify' boolean parameter's meaning or that it defaults to true and could potentially be set false. This is a significant gap because the description emphasizes verification without mapping to the 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Load' and resource '.aurora.json analysis bundle', and clearly states its purpose: verify integrity before trusting findings. It also lists the return values (run identity, confidence, fabricated_count, findings-by-severity counts), which distinguishes it from the sibling analysis tools.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Use when someone shares an Aurora bundle and you need proof it is untampered.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the 'BEFORE trusting its findings' hint implies it should precede analysis tools.

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