app_load_file

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions BLE, request type, and a warning, but does not disclose error handling, potential side effects, or behavior when the app is not running. 'Real action.' is vague.

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 sentences with a warning symbol. Front-loaded with action and example. No redundant words; each 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Description covers BLE transport, prerequisite, and gives a concrete example. However, lacks details on success/error response behavior, which is partly acceptable due to output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (path) with 0% schema coverage. The description clarifies it's a file path and gives an example extension (.sub), but does not specify format, allowed values, or where to find paths. Adds some meaning but could be more explicit.

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?

Clearly states the action (open a specific saved file via BLE) and the resource (file in its app). The example '.sub into Sub-GHz' provides concrete context, and the distinction from app_launch is implied by the prerequisite warning.

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 states the prerequisite that the app must already be running and advises to use app_launch first. This gives clear usage context but does not cover when not to use or alternative tools beyond app_launch.

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