mt_load_session

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool loads past backup sessions but doesn't explain what 'load' entails—whether it's read-only, modifies state, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns data. For a tool with potential data access implications, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese ('過去のバックアップセッションを読み込みます') that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's behavior (e.g., read-only vs. mutative), return values, or error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with backup data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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, with the single parameter 'sessionId' documented as 'セッションID' (session ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 '過去のバックアップセッションを読み込みます' clearly states the action (読み込みます/load) and resource (バックアップセッション/backup session) in Japanese. It distinguishes from siblings like mt_create_backup, mt_delete_session, and mt_list_sessions by specifying loading of past sessions rather than creating, deleting, or listing them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mt_restore, which might involve similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like mt_restore or mt_get_backup_items. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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