load-gtkw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it parses and returns the structure, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential errors, file existence requirements, or any side effects. The behavioral contract is minimally addressed.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the components of the returned structure. There is no filler, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized.

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?

The description lists the returned components (metadata, signals, buses, groups), which gives a general idea of the output, but there is no output schema and no mention of error scenarios or the tool's role relative to siblings. For a tool with no output schema, it should more explicitly describe the return format or how it fits into the larger workflow.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage of the only parameter (file_name), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the .gtkw file', such as format expectations or error handling. It neither enhances nor detracts from 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Parse a .gtkw file and return its full structure' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve specific signals, groups, or buses by returning the complete file structure. This is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention that this load might precede get-signal or get-bus-signals, nor does it offer any alternative context. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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