load_form

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not contradicting them. The description adds the constraint that 'file' must be an absolute path, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if the file does not exist, whether the current scene is replaced, or any side effects on the scene state.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The key action and the critical parameter constraint are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key parameter constraint. However, it lacks context about error conditions, side effects on the current scene, and whether this is a server-side file operation. For a tool that loads a file into a scene, an agent might need to know if the scene is replaced or if a new scene is created.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying that 'file' must be an absolute path and that it refers to a .form file. However, it does not explain the expected file format details, whether the path should be a local filesystem path or a server-side path, or any constraints on the file content.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('.form file as a new scene'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_form or create_scene. It could be slightly more explicit about the relationship to create_scene, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 context: it is for opening an existing .form file, as opposed to creating a new scene or saving a form. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_scene or import_model, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, server must be running).

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