load_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'load and parse' without indicating side effects (e.g., caching, mutation), resource requirements, or operational constraints. For a load operation, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. However, the parameter info partially duplicates the schema. It is well-structured but could be front-loaded more aggressively.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's relatively simple interface (2 params, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not address common use cases or edge cases (e.g., path resolution, error handling).

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 description adds brief explanations for both parameters: 'run_id' is 'The run directory name or file path' and 'log_dir' is 'Optional path to log directory'. While the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), these sentences provide some meaning beyond raw field names, but are minimal.

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-resource pair ('load and parse a ROS2 log run') and states the outcome ('unified timeline'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_runs' or 'query_logs_tool', but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a run must first be listed with 'list_runs', or when to prefer other tools like 'get_timeline_tool' or 'query_bag_messages'.

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