load_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the default action replaces the current session, merge adds objects, and warns about collisions. It doesn't mention error handling or file existence checks, but the key behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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 well-structured: an opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by a detailed but efficient explanation of the default and merge behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description covers essential usage, behavioral nuances, and a practical example. An output schema exists, and the description need not explain return values. It is complete for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default false behavior of merge and clarifying the collision risk, which goes beyond the schema's 'Add to the current session rather than replacing it.'

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 restores a PyMOL session from a .pse file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like load_structure by explicitly mentioning session restoration and .pse files.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the default behavior (replace current session) versus merge=True (add objects), including a real-world scenario (two saved scenes side by side). It also warns about name collisions, which is excellent usage guidance.

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