load_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the accepted file formats and return value, but doesn't mention error behavior for missing files, invalid formats, or file size limits. It also doesn't state whether the file is parsed or just stored.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is minimal but sufficient for a single-parameter tool. No wasted 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?

For a simple loader with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks error-handling details and doesn't explain what doc_id is or how it relates to other tools, which could leave an agent uncertain about downstream usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter as an absolute or relative path to the contract file, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. However, it doesn't clarify path format nuances or whether the file must exist.

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 contract file from disk and returns a doc_id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_documents and extract_clauses, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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: it is the entry point for loading a contract file before other operations like extract_clauses or summarize_contract. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like file existence or format support.

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