pursIdeLoad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a prerequisite action that enables other tools, implying it's a setup/initialization step. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., loading time, memory usage), error handling, or what happens if modules fail to load. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisite and usage guidance in clear, imperative sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what it does, the second states prerequisites, and the third gives timing instructions. 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 complexity (initialization step for an IDE server), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and usage sequence, which are critical for an agent. However, it lacks details on expected outcomes (e.g., success indicators) or error cases, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and prerequisites, which helps contextualize the 'modules' parameter (e.g., why loading modules is needed). However, it doesn't provide additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema says (e.g., module naming conventions).

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 specific action ('Load PureScript modules into the IDE server') and the purpose ('for type checking and completions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'pursIdeList' (which likely lists modules) or 'pursIdeType' (which likely checks types). It uses precise verbs and resources.

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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: 'PREREQUISITE: IDE server must be running' and 'ALWAYS run this first after starting the IDE server before using other pursIde* tools.' This clearly indicates when to use it (after server start, before other IDE tools) and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'start_purs_ide_server' (which starts the server).

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