lm_load

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only but non-destructive, framing it as a mutation. 'Verifies state and config' hints at post-load validation, but the description omits critical behavior: whether loading replaces an already-loaded model, whether an unload is required first, or what happens on failure. Given annotations only cover the safety hint, the description should carry much more.

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 short fragments, front-loaded and free of padding, which would score well for brevity. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the telegraphic phrasing obscures meaning instead of conveying it efficiently.

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 mutating load tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without required parameter meaning, load/overwrite semantics, or result expectations. It is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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 for two undocumented parameters including a nested LoadOptions object with five fields. It loosely names the concepts ('context, flash attention, batch, experts, GPU KV cache') but gives no mapping to option names, value formats, defaults, or the required 'model' parameter.

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 fragment 'Native load' plus the option list implies loading a model with the named settings, and 'Native' loosely distinguishes it from the sibling lm_load_advanced. However, it never states plainly what is being loaded or onto what, so the verb+resource are only inferred from the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the model must be downloaded first), and no indication of when to prefer lm_load_advanced or lm_unload. The only implicit signal is the word 'Native', which is too weak to serve as guidance.

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