scf_load_tools

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with this being a session-capability operation rather than a data mutation, so there is no contradiction; the description usefully adds that the response surfaces the newly available tools and that loading is incremental. It does not disclose whether repeated loads are idempotent, whether previously loaded groups persist, or any cost/limit on session size — context an agent would want before calling with "all".

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return behavior appended last. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing 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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it yields. The only gap is the absence of an explicit precondition statement telling the agent when a group must be loaded before its tools can be invoked.

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 100% and the enum description already spells out each group and the sibling read/write tools it unlocks, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's parenthetical list of group names only echoes the enum values and adds no new semantics (e.g. no note on ordering, minItems handling, or "all" equivalence).

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 ("Load") and resource ("SCF tool groups") plus an explicit enumeration of the loadable groups, and the closing sentence clarifies the effect ("Returns the tools now available"). This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, all of which are per-resource read/write tools rather than a capability loader.

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 phrase "Load more ... into this session" implies the trigger is needing a group that isn't yet available, and the description hints that new tools appear afterward. However, it never states the condition explicitly (e.g. "call this when a required scf_*_read/write tool is missing") and gives no guidance on batching groups versus calling "all".

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