loadProgram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether loading a new program replaces existing definitions, how it handles invalid Prolog, or how it interacts with session state (given the saveSession/loadSession siblings). This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Loads', and contains no redundant or filler words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary purpose. However, it omits critical behavioral context, such as the effect of repeated loads on existing program definitions and the relationship to session persistence, which an agent would need to use the tool reliably in a multi-step workflow.

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?

The schema description for the 'program' parameter is complete (100% coverage) and already states 'The Prolog program definitions to load'. The tool description merely echoes this without adding syntax, format, or additional usage details, so it provides no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Loads' and identifies the resource as 'Prolog program definitions', clarifying that these definitions are intended for later queries. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like runPrologQuery (which executes queries) and session management 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?

The phrase 'can be queried later' implies that this tool should be used before running queries, and thus before runPrologQuery. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the usage context only implicit.

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