load_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions loading from 'Derived Data folder' and returns a success boolean, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., caching), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with project data.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core function.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema covers the return value, so the description doesn't need to explain returns further. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'projectName' refers to 'Name of the project to load the index for', clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity) or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 action ('Load the IndexStore') and resource ('for a project from the Derived Data folder'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_occurrences' or 'search_pattern', which likely operate on different resources or with different purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must exist or be indexed first) or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage boundaries beyond the basic function.

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