load_snapshot

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond that: the version-compatibility requirement, the performance profile ('in seconds instead of re-elaborating'), and the side effect of intent=True rebuilding the warm intent layer. It does not state what happens on a version mismatch or exactly which session state is overwritten, keeping it short of a 5.

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 benefit and immediately followed by the fallback rule and precondition. No filler, though the closing intent clause is slightly dense relative to its value.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations present, the description covers purpose, precondition, alternative tools, and the optional parameter's effect, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Return behavior is not described, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that intent=True re-elaborates the warm intent layer 'for get_intent', giving the parameter purpose in the workflow rather than just restating the schema text. The directory parameter's snapshot origin is already covered by the 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 (load a save_snapshot directory into the active session) plus the exact outcome (fast restore instead of re-elaboration). It is clearly separable from save_snapshot and from the load_systemverilog/load_verilog/load_vhdl siblings, which it names.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: use load_systemverilog/load_verilog/load_vhdl when no compatible snapshot exists, and adds the hard precondition that the directory must match the najaeda version. Alternatives and the condition selecting them are named outright.

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