rew_load_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool creates a plan, implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not specify whether it modifies any files, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects on existing plans. The behavior is only partially transparent.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the execution routing. There is no wasted verbosity or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and poorly documented parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the generated plan contains, what the execution step entails, or any dependencies or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'file' or 'home' parameters. The phrase 'MDAT load plan' hints that 'file' is the MDAT file to load, but this is not explicit, and 'home' is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific action: 'create a hash-bound workspace MDAT load plan,' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool rew_load_file_plan, which likely serves an identical role. The 'compatibility alias' label hints at redundancy but does not clarify how this tool differs, if at all.

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 a direct routing instruction: 'execute with rew_load_file_execute,' telling the agent to follow up with the execution tool. It lacks any guidance on when to choose this tool over rew_load_file_plan or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites or context that would inform tool selection.

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