Load a PDX

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

Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful behavioral distinction that this loads an existing bundle without building. It does not explain what destructive consequences loading may have on current simulator state, but the annotation covers that safety profile.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the critical scoping detail 'without running a build task'. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter, a full schema description, and an output schema present. The description plus schema is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only a slightly richer statement about load-time side effects would push it to full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both product_path and pid in sufficient detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the bundle must already exist, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Load an existing PDX directory bundle'. The qualifier 'without running a build task' distinguishes this from build-and-run workflows and from sibling tools like playdate_run or playdate_restart.

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 gives clear context: use this when the .pdx already exists and no build step is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'without running a build task' contrast implies the broader run/build workflow boundary.

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