load-storybook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Load' without explaining side effects, return data, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional enum parameter, and the description covers the invocation logic. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain what 'IGDS Storybook data' entails or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving some ambiguity.

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 already fully covers the 'framework' parameter with a description and enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description echoes this by saying 'specific framework or all frameworks' but adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (load), the resource (IGDS Storybook data), and the scope (specific framework or all frameworks). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get-story or zeroheight-get-storybook-ref, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 defining the framework selection and the 'omit for all' behavior, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools is stated.

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