load_figure

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 only mentions deprecation and gives no information about the tool's behavior, side effects, permissions, or return format. This fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no substantive information beyond the deprecation notice, so while it is brief, it does not earn high marks for structure.

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 that the tool is deprecated, the description fully serves its purpose by warning against use and directing to artifact_read. It is complete in the context of deprecation; however, it offers no information about the tool's actual functionality or parameters, making it incomplete if the tool must be used for legacy reasons.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (figure_path, max_bytes, project_path). With a complete lack of parameter documentation, the description fails to compensate, making it impossible for the agent to understand parameter meaning.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only says 'Deprecated: use artifact_read.' It lacks a verb and resource that describe the tool's function, making it missing rather than distinct. Even the tool name 'load_figure' implies a function, but the description does not confirm or explain it.

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 explicitly instructs to use artifact_read instead, providing a clear alternative and implicitly stating when not to use this tool (never). This is the highest clarity for usage guidance, as it tells the agent exactly which tool to select.

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