pyocd_project_load

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool either loads from a config file or auto-discovers files, and details the returned fields. It mentions no side effects, but given it is a load operation, destructive actions are unlikely. The lack of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., project_dir must exist) is a minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and the second provides usage guidance and return value listing. It is front-loaded with key information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No significant gaps are apparent for this type of tool.

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 single parameter 'project_dir' has a schema description 'Absolute path to the project root directory', and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate. The description implies its use through context but doesn't elaborate on format or validation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool loads project debug configuration from a file or auto-discovers files, with a specific verb 'Load' and resource 'project debug configuration'. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by emphasizing it should be called first before any debug session, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST before any debug session to get file paths', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context makes it obvious that it is a prerequisite setup tool, not for ongoing debugging.

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