load_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important fallback behavior ('if missing, returns a neutral default') and the exact return shape {campaign, found, frontmatter, body}. It does not state side-effect read-only status or error behavior, but 'load' plus the fallback statement is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: one defines the resource and fallback, one states when to use it, and one gives the return contract. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 one-parameter, read-oriented tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, missing-data behavior, and the return shape. It does not explain the semantics of frontmatter/body, but that is inferable from the contents described in the first sentence.

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 the description must compensate for the single 'campaign' parameter. It clarifies that the parameter identifies the campaign whose style profile is loaded, but it does not provide format, allowed values, or identifier semantics. For a single obvious parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 names a specific verb ('loads'), a specific resource (a campaign's style profile), and enumerates what that profile contains (system prompt fragments, tone examples, taboos). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like load_play_context by focusing on stylistic tone rather than broader context.

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?

It gives an explicit timing instruction: call before preparation, analysis, or running to align output with the campaign's tone. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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