load_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it mutates state, requires authentication, or is safe to call multiple times). The term 'load' and 'initialise' suggest a setup operation, but behavioral details are missing.

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, with two sentences: the first defines the action and resources, the second provides usage context. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing brevity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not clarify what 'complete workflow context' means in practical terms, the return format, or how the session initialization behaves. Key details about state changes and error conditions are absent.

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 tool description does not explain any of the three parameters. Schema coverage is low (33%), with only includeFileContent having a description. The description mentions loading agents, skills, files, and libraries but does not map these to parameters, failing to add value beyond the schema.

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 complete workflow context including agents, skills, files, and libraries, and identifies its usage for initializing a full workflow session. While specific, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get or get_project, but the bulk initialization intent is evident.

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 advises using this tool to initialize a full workflow session, providing a clear usage context. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives (e.g., using get for individual components). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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