cmw_load_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Load and restore' but does not mention that this action likely overwrites the current device state, may require an active connection, or any other side effects. For a state-modifying tool, 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has only 3 parameters and no output schema, but it is a mutation operation (loading state) with significant side effects. The description does not cover prerequisites, behavior on execution, or how the host/port parameters relate to the operation. This is incomplete for a state-restoring tool, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 only 33% (only filename is described). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the role of 'host' and 'port' parameters, nor does it add any syntax or format details beyond the schema's filename note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action ('Load and restore') on a specific resource ('CMW500 state') from a file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmw_save_state (the inverse operation) and cmw_load_template (which loads templates, not full state).

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 usage for restoring a previously saved state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear enough that this is the inverse of cmw_save_state, but lacks explicit context.

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