digital_load_circuit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it uses 'the safest available launcher' and lists the returned fields (loaded, app, path, launcher), which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the operation modifies anything. For a load operation, this is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and efficiently covers the target, method, and return values. Every part is informative and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description provides the essential purpose and return format, which is sufficient for a simple load operation. However, it omits clarification for the optional 'app_path' parameter and offers no error-handling or usage context. Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), it is barely adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'path' or 'app_path' beyond their names. The description mentions 'path' in the return but not as an input parameter, and 'app_path' is entirely undocumented. This is a significant failure to add value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (load), the resource (.dig file), and the target environment (Digital.app on macOS). It also mentions a specific approach ('safest available launcher') and the expected return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool digital_open_circuit, which might also load/open circuits, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as digital_open_circuit or other sibling tools. The description simply states what it does without any context about scenarios that favor this tool or exclusions. This is a clear gap for an agent deciding between load and open operations.

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