oracle_tm_load_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that loading a template replaces the current threat model, implying a destructive action. However, it does not explain whether unsaved changes are lost, if confirmation is required, or what happens to the previous model. The replacement is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that communicate the core function and side effect. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and effect. However, it lacks context about error conditions, case sensitivity of names, whether a session must exist, and what the return value indicates. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value details, but the overall completeness is adequate, not robust.

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 sole parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage. The only hint in the description is 'by name', which provides minimal guidance. The agent is not told what constitutes a valid name, where to find template names (e.g., from oracle_tm_list_templates), or any format constraints. This under-disclosure forces reliance on context or trial and error.

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 verb 'Load' and the resource 'threat model template', with the outcome 'Replaces the current threat model'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like oracle_tm_clear or oracle_load_branch, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., oracle_tm_clear for resetting, oracle_tm_save for persisting). The agent is given no context about prerequisites, such as needing an active session or avoiding data loss.

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