load_plan

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

Annotations declare non-destructive and non-open-world, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that this is a load step in a security-review workflow, but doesn't explain side effects, what happens to the loaded plan, or validation behavior. That is a modest addition, not a rich one.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers the basics but misses details like expected return, behavior on invalid paths, and the exact meaning of 'load.' For an agent to invoke this correctly, the path semantics and outcome should be clearer.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only refers to the plan as 'supplied,' implying the path is the plan location, but doesn't clarify path type, format, or how the plan is consumed. This leaves an agent guessing about a required 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?

States a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('security-review plan'), with a usage context ('before execution'). It clearly differs from siblings like get_task and status, though it doesn't name them. Slight ambiguity remains in what 'load' means operationally.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'before execution' signals when to call this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but for a simple plan-loading step this is sufficient.

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