Load Graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important behavior: unknown blocks, unsupported expressions and invalid connections are 'skipped and reported' rather than causing failure. It stops short of saying what happens to the previously loaded graph or what error surfaces if the path is bad.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and file formats, followed by the fallback behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 return values need no explanation, and the skip-and-report behavior is covered. However, for a state-changing load with no annotations, the description omits whether the current graph is discarded, whether unsaved edits are at risk, and what happens on an unreadable or missing file.

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 single `path` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, by naming the file extensions accepted for that path (Studio .gr4s vs GRC YAML .gr4c/.grc/.yaml). It does not clarify absolute vs relative paths or quoting requirements.

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 ('Load') and resource ('a .gr4s / .gr4c / .grc / .yaml file as the current graph'), and enumerates the accepted formats, which plainly separates it from new_graph, save_graph and show_graph. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the operation 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'as the current graph' suggests this replaces the active graph, but the description never says when to choose it over new_graph or how it relates to save_graph/deploy_graph. No preconditions (file must exist, path format, whether unsaved work is lost) are stated.

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