load_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does reveal the internal command mapping for the `core` flag and the intended session state. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., replacing an existing target or behavior if called on an already-initialized session) or failure modes.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary action and mode distinction are front-loaded, and the precondition is stated 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?

The text covers the core action, both modes, and the intended precondition, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It leaves `session_id` implicit and does not specify what happens in unsupported session states, so completeness is only partial.

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 explain the parameters. It explains `path` and the `core` flag through the file/core-file distinction, but says nothing about `session_id` or how the target session is selected.

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 the verb 'Load' with explicit resources ('program' vs 'core dump') and maps each to gdb commands (`file <path>`, `core-file <path>`), making its function unmistakable. The scoping phrase 'For gdb sessions started without an inferior' separates it from session-management siblings.

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 states the applicable scenario ('gdb sessions started without an inferior'), which helps an agent decide when to call it. It does not name an alternative tool for sessions that already have an inferior, so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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