load_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: that symbols are per-session, that no flashing occurs, and that the profile elf_path is a fallback. It does not disclose the non-idempotent behavior hinted by idempotentHint=false or error behavior when a path is invalid.

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 tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the key constraint 'WITHOUT flashing', and every sentence earns its place by adding a distinct fact (non-flashing, per-session lifetime, fallback path).

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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to call it: when to use it, the no-flash constraint, and the elf_path fallback. It could be stronger by noting behavior on failure or the distinction from flash_firmware's side effects, but it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the same elf_path default the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (loads) and resource (symbols from an ELF/AXF) with an explicit scope qualifier, 'WITHOUT flashing', that immediately distinguishes it from the sibling flash_firmware. An agent can identify exactly what this does versus the nearby flash/build tools.

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?

Explains the triggering conditions ('after a fresh connect or recover_session you need this') and names the alternative ('or flash_firmware'). It also states the purpose of loading (so symbol breakpoints resolve), giving the agent clear selection logic.

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