Load graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the persistent side effect that later changes are auto-saved to this file, and that a missing path silently starts an empty graph rather than erroring. It omits error/permission behavior and whether the previous current file is discarded.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the load action, then side effect, then edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

A mutation-style, state-changing tool; the description covers format inference, persistence behavior, and the missing-file case, and an output schema exists so return values need no explaining. Only failure/permission semantics are unaddressed.

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 100% so the single path parameter is documented, and the description adds real meaning by explaining that the extension selects the parser (.json vs YAML). That is genuine added value beyond the schema's generic 'Path to the graph file'.

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 (open/load) and resource (graph file) plus format handling and the stateful consequence of loading. It implicitly contrasts with siblings like get_graph (read-only) and save_graph, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this to open a file and make it the working graph, and a missing file yields an empty graph. There is no explicit when-not or comparison to get_graph, so an agent must infer that get_graph reads the current graph rather than loading one.

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