engine_whole_load

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

The description discloses key behaviors: writes to a local file, never returns content in the answer, and does a byte-for-byte copy. However, with no annotations, it carries the full burden and omits details like whether existing files are overwritten, if parent directories are created, or any permission requirements. The core behavior is disclosed but not exhaustively.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the essential behavior. The second sentence, while providing context, is cryptic ('the plain load answers with its last megabyte') and could be misinterpreted. Overall it's not overly long but contains unnecessary ambiguity, so it's adequate but not exemplary.

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?

With no annotations and an incomplete schema, the description must carry the full burden. It explains the core behavior and hints at usage, but fails to clarify the parameters, error handling, or file-overwrite semantics. For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 only 50% description coverage (file is described, path is not). The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'path' or 'file' or their relationship (e.g., which is the store path and which is the local destination). It adds no value beyond the existing schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter.

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 action ('Download ONE file of the store') and the resource ('any tree, byte for byte') with a specific outcome ('written to file on this machine, never entering the answer'). It differentiates from siblings by contrasting with 'the plain load answers with its last megabyte', implying this tool provides the whole file, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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 usage context: use this when you need the entire file (e.g., 'a journal of core/log whole') because 'the plain load answers with its last megabyte', and for anything 'too big or too exact for an answer'. This gives clear conditions for when to prefer this tool over the standard load, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it.

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