Stage Trees Reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses join-not-restart semantics for concurrent loads, the auto-invocation after scene reload, the reply shape {trees, growers}, and the emitted events trees_loaded and voice_error per failed tree. It does not spell out permissions or what state existing trees are left in, so not a 5.

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?

Very dense and front-loaded: the core action and path pattern come first, with operational caveats and outputs following. The telegraphic style ('paced like the room', 'page command: trees_reload') is compact without wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief '{trees, growers}' mention is a bonus rather than a requirement, and event emissions plus concurrency behavior are covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented required 'scene' argument, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong.

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% for the single 'scene' parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by embedding scene in the path template scenes/<scene>/trees/tree_<k>.glb, implying the value selects a scene directory, but gives no format guidance (name vs. id, casing) for the required argument.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Load (again) the grown trees ... under their tree_<k> items') and even gives the on-disk path pattern, so an agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like stage_scene_reload or stage_growth_set, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It usefully states that a running load is joined rather than restarted and that the page performs this automatically after a scene reload (implying a manual call is often unnecessary). However, it never says when an agent *should* choose this over stage_scene_reload or stage_growth_set, leaving the selection decision implicit.

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