kirikiri_load_scenario_text

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 says 'Load' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, whether encoding is handled, or what the return format is. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 with no fluff. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structural breakdown of parameters or behavior, which reduces its usefulness despite its brevity.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only offers a minimal statement of action; it does not explain return values, encoding defaults, or how this relates to sibling scenario tools. This is far from complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (path or encoding). It provides no additional meaning beyond the raw parameter names, leaving the agent to guess what 'path' refers to and how 'encoding' behaves.

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 uses a clear verb (Load) and specific resource (KAGeXpress multilingual scenario .txt lines), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kirikiri_write_scenario_text. It lacks an explicit differentiator, but the action and target are 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools (e.g., kirikiri_write_scenario_text, kirikiri_list_text_refs) or any prerequisites, making it hard to know if this is the right tool for a given task.

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