stata_load_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the return value (cleaned output and {source, N, k}), and the act of 'loading into memory' implies a session state change. Yet it does not explicitly disclose the risk of overwriting unsaved data or that the operation mutates the Stata session; this side-effect detail is only present in the schema's clear parameter, not in the description itself.

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 a single, compact piece of prose that front-loads the primary action and resource, then states the return shape. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary caveats.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation details: what data sources are allowed, that it returns structured output, and what that output looks like. It does not explain session_id semantics, but the schema covers that, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return shape. The missing explicit mention of memory-replacement side effects is a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it summarizes the domain but does not clarify any parameter details beyond the schema's own descriptions. This is acceptable because the schema covers all parameters thoroughly.

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 states a specific verb ('载入' / load), a clear resource ('数据集到 Stata 内存'), and enumerates supported formats and sources (.dta/.csv/.xlsx/.xls, local or https URL). It also mentions the return shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like stata_inspect_data or stata_run.

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 gives clear context about what this tool is for and places constraints on where files must live (working directory or authorized directories), which helps an agent decide if it can use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the selection logic partially implicit.

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