load_sample

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 does disclose one important side effect — an empty path clears the sample — which is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer. However, it says nothing about what happens when the path is invalid or the file is missing, whether playback/state is interrupted, or what is returned, leaving key mutation semantics undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence with the action and both parameters front-loaded, plus a parenthetical for the one edge case. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description has to do all the work and only partially does. It covers the core operation and the clearing edge case but leaves error behavior, return value, and file-format expectations unstated — an agent can call it, but cannot predict failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare `path` (string) and `channel` (integer) fields. It does map both parameters to meaning (audio file path, sampler channel index) and adds the non-obvious empty-string semantics for `path`. It still omits path format/relative-vs-absolute resolution and channel index range or base.

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?

Specific verb+resource: loads an audio file at `path` into a sampler channel. An agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like set_channel or add_channel because it names the sample-loading operation explicitly. It stops short of a 5 only because it never mentions the delete/clear tooling context or how it differs from other channel-mutating siblings.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over set_channel or add_channel, nor any prerequisites (does the sample file need to exist? must the channel already be a sampler?). The only conditional hint is the parenthetical about the empty path, which is a behavior rather than usage routing.

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