engine_php_load

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether loading executes the PHP file, returns its contents, parses the manifest, or has side effects. The phrase 'with its manifest' hints at behavior but does not clarify the actual operation or output.

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 one short, readable sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, an agent does not know what the operation returns, how the manifest is delivered, or what path is expected. The single-sentence description is too thin to be a complete reference for correctly invoking this tool in varied scenarios.

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 one 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description implies that path refers to a PHP file, which is some added meaning, but it does not explain path format, whether it is relative or absolute, or how the manifest is associated. Because schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate more than it 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 uses a specific verb, 'Load', with an explicit resource, 'php file (root script or module)', and adds the manifest detail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling loaders like engine_static_load, engine_html_load, engine_whole_load, and engine_files_load by the file type involved.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as engine_whole_load, engine_static_load, or engine_html_load. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a selection rule, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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