rws_load_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not fulfill it. It never says that a load overwrites or replaces an existing program (the destructive implication of the default replace loadmode lives only in the schema), nor whether mastership or a stopped controller is required, nor what happens on failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the sentence is short enough that the missing behavioral context is a content gap rather than a verbosity problem.

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?

This is a filesystem-mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, and the description supplies none of the surrounding context an agent needs: required controller state, mastership, overwrite semantics, or what success looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant shortfall.

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%: task, progpath, and the loadmode enum are fully documented in the schema including the default of replace. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Load a RAPID program from the controller filesystem") and names the transport (RWS). It is distinguishable from rws_load_module_from_file by operating on programs rather than modules, but the distinction is left implicit rather than called out.

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 guidance on when to use this versus rws_load_module_from_file, rws_save_program, or rws_start_program. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as mastership, motor state, or controller mode that typically gate a program load.

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