viewer_load_package

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

Annotations already indicate destructive hint, so description should elaborate on side effects. It mentions loading but does not clarify if previous viewer state is cleared, overwritten, or merged. The return of a summary is noted but not the behavioral impact on viewer state.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, front-loaded with action and result. No unnecessary words.

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 destructive hint and a single parameter, the description lacks completeness. It does not state if viewer must be empty, if loading fails gracefully, or how the summary is used. Output schema is present but not described.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions 'pnt_path' implicitly but provides no details on file format, required permissions, or format constraints. The parameter is not explained beyond its name.

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 ('loads'), the resource ('.pnt file'), the destination ('open viewer'), and the return value ('summary from clashes.json'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like viewer_clear or viewer_highlight_clash.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., viewer must be open) or typical workflow (e.g., use after viewer_list_clashes).

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