load_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: replaces any previously loaded spec, takes precedence over PROSUITE_SPEC_PATH, and returns status with conditions_loaded or error. It does not explicitly mention file access permissions or error handling details, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second paragraph explains side effects and precedence, third gives usage guidance, and then a clear bullet for the argument and return value. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the action, side effects, usage context, parameter details, and return value. It also mentions which sibling tools will use the loaded spec, providing full context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path'. The description compensates fully by specifying that the path must be an absolute path to a .qa.xml file on the local machine, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 tool loads a .qa.xml spec file at runtime, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which operate on an already-loaded spec) by emphasizing that this tool replaces any previously loaded spec and sets the file for subsequent spec operations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when the spec path is only known at conversation time (e.g., a file on OneDrive) instead of pre-configuring PROSUITE_SPEC_PATH. It also explains that subsequent spec tools use the new file, implying when not to use (if the path is already configured).

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