rlm.docs.load

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

No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as mutation of session state, side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. The phrase 'load documents' is ambiguous regarding consequences.

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?

Description is very short (one sentence plus a bulleted list). It is efficient and front-loaded, but the brevity compromises completeness. Every sentence provides relevant information, though more detail is needed.

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 complexity (array of arbitrary objects as sources, output schema exists but not described), the description is severely lacking. It does not specify source format, behavior on duplicates, session existence requirements, or return value structure.

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%: parameter descriptions are absent. The description adds brief explanations for session_id ('Session to load into') and sources ('List of source specs (type, path, content, etc.)'), but does not elaborate on the structure of source specs or valid values, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Load documents into the session context', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like rlm.docs.list (listing) and rlm.artifact.store (storing artifacts), though lacks specificity about what 'load' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or when not to use. Siblings like rlm.search.query or rlm.docs.peek are not contrasted.

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