plan_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'load,' but does not disclose whether loading replaces the current plan, requires an exact saved name, or produces any side effects or error conditions. For a state-changing load operation, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though it achieves brevity at the expense of behavioral and usage detail that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 one-parameter tool this is near-minimal, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of post-load behavior, error handling, or relationship to plan_load_code, an agent cannot fully judge side effects or reliably select this tool over alternatives.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond the vague implication that the plan was saved under a name. It adds no details about format, uniqueness, or how the name relates to plan_save.

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 a specific verb ('load') and a clear resource ('a plan saved with plan_save'), which identifies this as the inverse operation of plan_save. It is not a tautology and gives enough context to recognize the core function, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling plan_load_code.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'saved with plan_save' implies a save-then-load workflow, but the description never states when to choose this tool over plan_load_code, plan_list, or plan_status.

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