load_liberty

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value by stating it 'changes session state' and returning `{"ok": true}` — a return shape that matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting failure modes (bad paths, duplicate loads) or that repeated invocation is not idempotent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the ordering prerequisite, then the alternative and the state/return note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter loader with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing relative to load_verilog, the sibling alternative, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `files` parameter is already documented as 'One or more local Liberty .lib file paths.' The description's mention of local `.lib` files merely restates the schema, adding no syntax, globbing, or multi-file resolution detail. Baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 and resource: 'Register standard-cell models from local Liberty `.lib` files in the active session.' It is immediately distinguishable from load_primitives (built-in model sets) and load_verilog/load_vhdl without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the ordering condition ('use this before load_verilog when a gate netlist instantiates those cells') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('use load_primitives instead for the built-in Xilinx or Yosys model sets'). This is a full when/when-not/alternative routing statement.

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