tsf_load_series

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that data stays server-side ('never consumes your context') and that the return is a compact summary with specific fields. It also hints at the side effect of reusing a handle (replacing the panel). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, ordering, format, return details, caution. Front-loaded with the core action. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

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's role as the entry point for a time series workflow, the description covers purpose, required file format, return value (with summary contents), and a concrete usage caution. With an output schema present, the lack of detailed return structure is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds the critical constraint that the file must be in 'Nixtla long format (unique_id, ds, y)', which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 specific action: 'Read a CSV or Parquet panel from disk and register it under a handle.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'Call this first; every other tool takes the handle it returns.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and contextually positioned.

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 explicit ordering ('Call this first'), explains the handle's role in subsequent tools, and gives a practical caution about horizon choices based on the summary output. This equips the agent with clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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