load_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (no-op if already retained) and re-elaboration behavior. However, it omits details on side effects, permissions, or error handling, which are needed for safe invocation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids extraneous words, but the brevity sacrifices clarity for some readers. Still, it's efficiently structured.

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 description uses domain jargon ('warm intent layer', 'cold snapshot', 'SNL↔slang link') without elaboration. With no output schema and many sibling tools, this fails to fully orient an AI agent on how and when to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'flist/files' as captured inputs, hinting at their role, but does not explain 'top'. This partial compensation is insufficient for the 3 parameters.

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 tool's purpose: making the warm intent layer available for get_intent. It adds context about no-op behavior and re-elaboration, which helps differentiate from simple load operations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from all siblings like get_intent.

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 some usage context (after a cold snapshot, pass flist/files) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like load_snapshot or get_intent. It hints at prerequisites but lacks clear when-to-use guidance.

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