load_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behaviors beyond the schema: the file is loaded into memory, the alias defaults to the filename stem, and `replace` is required to reload an already-loaded alias (implying an otherwise erroring collision). It omits error behavior for missing/invalid JSON, memory/size implications, and whether existing data survives a failed load.

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?

Docstring-style Args/Returns layout makes it scannable, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first line. Every line carries information; the Returns block is slightly redundant given an output schema 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?

For a 3-parameter loader with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies purpose, per-parameter meaning, and alias/replace semantics. Missing only failure modes and idempotency guarantees, which are minor against the existing structured coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the three parameters is explained, with genuinely new meaning for `alias` (defaults to filename stem) and `replace` (needed to reload an existing alias) that the bare schema does not convey. Only `file_path` is a near-restatement of the title.

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 and resource with scope: "Load a JSON file from disk into memory." This cleanly separates it from siblings that write to disk (export_json), remove documents (unload_json), or inspect loaded documents (list_loaded, get_keys, jsonpath_query).

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is obviously the entry point that populates the in-memory store other siblings operate on, and the `replace` arg hints at reloading. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or ordering guidance.

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