load_ocel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool stores data under a fresh handle, infers format from extension, never returns the OCEL directly, and returns a summary dict. This is comprehensive and lacks contradictions.

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 two paragraphs, front-loading the main action and format inference, then providing return details and sibling guidance. It is efficient with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the format list into the first sentence.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, clear output schema presence), the description covers the essential aspects: input, behavior, output summary, and subsequent usage. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand usage, though it could mention the output schema explicitly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the path parameter implicitly by mentioning file extensions and reading from disk, but it does not explicitly state that 'path' is a required string for the local file path. More explicit parameter documentation would improve clarity.

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 'Read an OCEL 2.0 file from disk and store it under a fresh ocel_id handle.' It specifies the resource (OCEL 2.0 file) and the action (read and store). The mention of format inference and the return dict further clarify its purpose.

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 description provides guidance on when to use this tool vs. flatten_ocel, saying 'Use flatten_ocel to project the OCEL onto a single object type and obtain a traditional log_id.' It also explains that this tool does not return the OCEL itself, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with load_event_log or other load tools, so there is room for improvement.

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