coco_load_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two substantive traits: an immediate synchronous failure when no matching file exists, and asynchronous execution with a 'scheduled' result otherwise. It does not say whether loading overwrites the current machine state or what permissions/preconditions apply, so a small gap remains.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the failure and async-result behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, failure mode, and result semantics. It stops short of stating what 'scheduled' means for the caller or whether the load is destructive to current state, which are the only meaningful omissions.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'name' as the state name under the state directory. The description only echoes that resolution context ('no matching file exists in the state directory') without adding naming conventions, extensions, or path semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Schedule a MAME state load') and adds scope detail about when it fails and how the result is delivered. It is clearly distinguishable from its obvious counterpart coco_save_state by the load/save opposition, though it never names any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool restores a named state, so the context is a running machine that has previously saved one. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no comparison against adjacent tools like coco_soft_reset, coco_snapshot, or coco_start, which could also move the machine into a prior condition.

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