load_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the supported input formats and the parameter, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., network access, overwriting existing tools) or error behavior. It is adequate but not thorough.

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, uses bullet points for clarity, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and purpose. It does not explain the return value, but that falls outside requirement due to output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't state that loading modifies the tool registry.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by detailing the 'source' parameter with examples (URLs, file paths). It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it could specify constraints like accessibility.

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 verb 'Load additional tools from an OpenAPI spec URL or file path.' It specifies the resource (OpenAPI spec) and distinguishes from siblings like execute_tool or search_tools, making it unambiguous.

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 loading tools from external specs, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use.

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