get_driver

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It reveals that warnings (like Xmax undefined) do not block and only omit reference lines, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any potential errors, or what happens if the driver is not found. The description adds some value but lacks depth on error handling or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding a concise note about warnings. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it loads, the output content, and a key behavioral nuance (warnings don't block). It could mention more about return format or error cases, but for a single-parameter loader, it is adequately 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?

The schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with a description 'Driver file from search_drivers'. The tool description adds little beyond that, but since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't elaborate on the parameter format or any constraints beyond what the schema says.

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 verb 'Load' and the resource 'library driver', and specifies what is returned (full T/S parameters in friendly units plus upstream validation issues). It distinguishes from siblings like search_drivers (which searches) and add_driver (which adds), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 the tool is for loading a driver by name, and the schema mentions the parameter comes from search_drivers, which gives a hint of the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other tools (e.g., when you need full parameters vs. search results), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the driver name.

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