load_library

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions loading into memory and affecting subsequent tool calls, but does not detail side effects (e.g., idempotency, error handling, network dependencies). It adds some context beyond basic functionality, but lacks comprehensive safety or performance traits.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no verbose or redundant information. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 role as a prerequisite for many sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain return behavior, failure scenarios, or multiple-load handling. It covers basic usage but lacks completeness for error states or edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between cemPath and packageName, and that the registry defaults to jsdelivr and version to latest. This clarifies the dual-path setup beyond what the schema descriptions provide individually.

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 an additional web component library into memory by libraryId') and specifies the resource (web component library). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining that after loading, other CEM-dependent tools can target this library, which sets it apart from tools like unload_library or list_libraries.

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 clear guidance on when to use each parameter option ('Provide either a local cemPath or a packageName (+ optional version) to fetch from CDN'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, such as checking if the library is already loaded or comparing with unload_library.

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