load_scenario

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting current state), error handling, or requirements. The minimal description ('load from disk') adds little behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 short and efficiently structured with a purpose statement, a parameter list, and a return note. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers essential information (what it does, parameters, return type). It misses error handling or edge cases, but is complete for basic usage. Sibling tools are diverse enough that this description suffices.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: file_path (path to file) and format (afsim default, json for JSON). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title and type. However, it lacks details like accepted file extensions or validation.

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 scenario from disk, using specific verb 'load' and resource 'scenario from disk'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scenario, save_scenario, and delete_scenario by focusing on loading an existing file.

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 like create_scenario or get_scenario_content. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or situations where loading is appropriate.

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