load_spec_schema

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), providing no useful safety or behavioral cues. The description adds no details about side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether loading writes to storage. 'Load' is ambiguous and could imply a read or a mutation, so the description fails to disclose expected behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core action and format, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple description, though under-specified.

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 has three parameters (with one required) and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'diagram' parameter, how the schema relates to the diagram, or the return format. The output schema exists but doesn't help because no parameter semantics are explained. The description alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'inline' (spec) and 'file' (path) but does not explicitly name or explain these parameters, and it entirely omits the required 'diagram' parameter. This leaves a significant gap in understanding what each parameter does.

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 loads a YAML or JSON schema spec, either inline or from a file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_database_schema and load_ddl_schema by format and source. However, the relationship to the required 'diagram' parameter is not mentioned, so it's not fully clear.

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 implies usage by stating the supported formats (YAML/JSON) and sources (inline/file), which hints at when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly say 'use when you have a YAML/JSON spec' or contrast with sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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