debug_load_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says "create a debug session," which indicates a side effect (state change). It also gives context that Arch "connects to live sessions, traces failures, and inspects execution state," which implies the tool is part of a broader diagnostic capability. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the agent is already loaded. That's a moderate level of transparency.

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: the first provides family context, the second states the action, and the third gives format guidance. Each sentence contributes, though the first sentence could be seen as filler about Arch overall rather than this tool specifically. Still, it's concise and the key action is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 tool that loads an agent for debugging, the description explains the purpose, the agentPath format, and ties it to session creation. With no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't need to detail return values. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it does and how to call it.

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 100% — both agentPath and projectId are described in the schema. The description adds an example of the agentPath format, but this duplicates the schema's example. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description adds marginal value beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: "Load an agent and create a debug session." It identifies the specific action (loading an agent) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debug_list_agents or debug_analyze_session by focusing on the loading step. The agentPath format example reinforces the exact resource being loaded.

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 this tool is used as a first step in a debugging workflow by saying "Load an agent and create a debug session." However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like requiring a projectId (though that is a required param). It gives the agentPath format guidance but no conditions for choosing this tool over debug_session or debug_analyze_session.

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