get_loads

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the exact return shape (leaf readers with pin/model/source ref, plus top-level ports), that lowered assign glue is traversed rather than reported, and the pagination contract (capped at limit, default 50/max 200, truncated flag, no cursor). These are genuine non-obvious traits that an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then routes to alternatives, then covers return shape and pagination in a compact, well-ordered block. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, despite a slightly odd internal line break.

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 output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so (leaf readers, top-level ports, lowered glue handling), while also covering alternatives and pagination. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% — both path and limit are fully documented in the schema, including the same default/max values. The description reinforces the limit semantics and adds 'no cursor — raise limit to see more', which is minor incremental value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (immediate downstream endpoints that consume a term or net across hierarchy), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings get_drivers (upstream) and trace_cone (transitive fanout). An agent can select it correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('for direct readers') and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them ('get_drivers for upstream sources', 'trace_cone for the transitive combinational fanout'). Nothing is left to inference.

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