load_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it does not say that loading overwrites current in-progress state, whether the action is reversible, what happens if the name is unknown, or whether it interrupts a running game session. Sibling tools like close_game/start_game hint at a session lifecycle the description ignores.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key verb first. Its brevity is efficient, though it tips into under-specification rather than being tightly scoped.

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 not be described, but for a state-mutating tool with zero annotations and an entirely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves out the destructive effect and the source of valid names. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single "name" parameter has no documentation at all. The description only echoes it as "named" and never explains the expected identifier format or that valid names should come from list_states.

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?

"Restore a named save state" gives a specific verb (restore) and resource (save state), which an agent can read at a glance. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings save_state and list_states, which share the same "state" domain and could be confused at selection time.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_states (to find a name) or save_state (to create one), and no precondition such as the name needing to already exist. The only guidance is the implication carried by the word "restore."

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