load_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses format auto-detection, format override, glob/directory unioning with schema constraints, the return payload (id, format, schema, row count, etc.), and output size. It does not mention permission requirements or overwrite/alias conflict behavior, but the major behaviors are well-covered.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The format list, glob/directory note, return field list, and output size line are all useful and add no fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

This is a complex tool with four parameters, multiple formats, and glob/directory behavior. The description covers the core functionality, edge cases (schema matching for unions), return fields, and output size. Missing alias and options semantics, but the provided output schema and structured return info help fill some gaps. Overall, it is quite complete for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 does explain the format parameter ('pass format= to override') and path semantics (globs/directories unioning), but it does not explain the alias or options parameters. This partial coverage is better than nothing but leaves two of four parameters opaque.

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 tool loads a CSV/TSV/Parquet/JSON/NDJSON file, glob, or directory and registers it as a queryable source. This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_sources (which lists existing sources) and unload_source (which removes a source).

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 context: use this when you want to load and register a source for querying. It implicitly contrasts with list_files (which likely just lists files) and describes glob/directory unioning behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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