load_extended_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it discloses the no-restart behavior, the return fields (ok, loaded, already_loaded, invalid_categories), and the non-obvious caveat that the MCP client may need to refresh its tool list. It stops short of saying whether repeated loads are idempotent or what the cost/limits of loading are.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the no-restart constraint, then a scannable category list. The embedded sub-tool descriptions add length, but they earn their place by previewing what each category unlocks; only minor tidying is warranted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies a Returns section, and it lists the full category vocabulary. For a meta-tool with one parameter this is close to sufficient; only failure/edge behavior (e.g., what invalid categories do) is left implicit.

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 schema provides no enum, so the description is the only source of valid values, and it enumerates all category names with examples like ["drafting", "files"]. The sub-tool glosses are useful but occasionally muddy, mixing Turkish labels, which slightly weakens the mapping of names to categories.

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 and resource ('Load extra tool categories into the running MCP server') plus the key constraint 'no restart'. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling legal-research tools, which retrieve content rather than mutate the server's tool surface.

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Core profile registers 11 tools. Everything else waits here; load a category when the task needs it.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., what to do if a category is already loaded), which keeps it short of a 5.

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