load_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It describes the action and output but does not mention whether the operation is safe (read-only) or destructive (e.g., overwrites an existing session), what permissions are required, or what happens on errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates session state.

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 (two sentences), front-loads the action and primary object, and contains no filler or redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and expected output.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the main action and mentions the return value, but the return is vague ('network id and counts') without specifying what counts refer to (nodes, links, etc.). It also omits any prerequisite conditions or session-handling semantics, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, with the inputFile parameter already explained as 'relative to the server data directory'. The description's mention of the 'server's data directory' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify path syntax, allowed extensions, or edge cases, so the description adds minimal value.

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 action ('Load'), the resource ('EPANET INP model'), the origin ('server's data directory'), and the destination ('named session'). It also mentions the output ('network id and counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_network or generate_network_from_bbox, which have different verbs and resources.

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 implies usage for loading an existing INP model from the server, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_network or generate_network_from_bbox. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the agent must infer based on the verb 'load' alone.

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