data_load

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations (all false hints). It discloses critical behavioral traits: the kernel starts on first use, a durable frame_handle is returned, the handle is stored in a persistent store so it survives kernel timeouts, and the handle has a TTL (ttl_ms). This is rich, actionable information not available in annotations or schema.

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 first sentence delivers the core purpose concisely, followed by valuable but somewhat lengthy details about the frame_handle. Each sentence adds meaningful information, though the handle explanation could be tightened. Overall, it is well-structured and not wasteful, but slightly more verbose than necessary.

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?

Given the minimal schema (2 string params) and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's return values (frame_handle, profile) and handle semantics. It lacks details on file type support and error behavior, but for a data loading tool with these siblings, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that `name` becomes the session variable name (DATA[name]) and `path` refers to the data file. However, it does not specify file format, path constraints (absolute vs. relative), or other parameter details, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Load a data file into the session kernel as DATA[name]'. It also distinguishes from siblings by showing how the loaded data is used downstream with py_run and chart_spec, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 strong usage context: 'loaded once, use it many times' and explicitly mentions integration with py_run and chart_spec. It implies this is the initial step before those tools, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like data_profile or session_reset. No clear 'when not to use' is stated, but the intended workflow is well conveyed.

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