load_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the destructive default (clears session), the merge behavior, the refusal condition, the return payload, coordinate system details, and the conversion to browsable resources. This is a comprehensive safety/behavioral profile.

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 a single dense paragraph but logically organized: action, default behavior, merge variant, edge case, return values, resources, and coordinate system. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler, achieving conciseness through purposeful density.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: the two modes, re-load restriction, return fields, coordinate transformation, and resource availability. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by elaborating on the default behavior, the meaning of merge:true, and the edge case of merging into an empty session, increasing clarity for parameter usage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Open a plan PDF from disk') and immediately clarifies the default replacement behavior versus merge mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on already-loaded sheets or produce analyses.

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 contrasts the default replace-all behavior with merge:true for adding to a working set, explains the bid-set use case, and states that re-loading an already-merged file is refused. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a concrete scenario.

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