cas_session_loads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context on top: it explains the meaning of the `loaded` vs `lost` split (session restart) and explicitly says 'Nothing is sent to CAS'. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the shape or volume of what is returned.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, but the phrasing ('Tables "Load into this session" loaded:') is grammatically awkward and the two result keys are buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description carries the necessary return-value semantics by naming both result categories and their meaning. It would be stronger if it noted how the connection parameter affects scope.

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?

There is one optional `connection` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its default behavior (null). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies the resource clearly: tables loaded into the current CAS session, split into `loaded` and `lost`. It is an implicit report/list rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as cas_load_info or cas_tables, but the intent is still recoverable without opening the schema.

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 is only implied: the agent is told to offer cas_reload_tables when `lost` tables exist, which is a useful follow-up rule. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus cas_load_info or cas_tables, and no prerequisites are given.

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