load_gds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that loading replaces any current in-memory layout, which is a critical destructive behavior. It also explains the default behavior of top_cell. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, workflow, and key parameter behavior.

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 simple load tool with two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, workflow, key behavior, and parameter defaults. It could mention that the layout is now in memory for subsequent edits, but the workflow hint covers that. Overall complete for the context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that path is the file to load and top_cell selects the cell to edit with a default. This adds some value but lacks details on path format, file existence checks, or error handling. With only two parameters, minimal coverage is acceptable.

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 an existing GDS/OASIS file into the active session for editing. It uses a specific verb (load) and resource (GDS/OASIS file), and distinguishes itself from siblings like new_layout and save_gds by describing its role in the editing workflow.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, describing the workflow of loading, editing, then saving. It implicitly distinguishes from new_layout (for creating new layouts). However, it could explicitly state that this tool should be used when editing existing files, not for creating new ones.

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