Load project (JSON)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Reading is safe; writing is still guarded' adds some safety context, but 'guarded' is undefined — an agent cannot tell whether loading overwrites an existing project, how id collisions are handled, or what 'activate' mutates. For a load tool that clearly writes state, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the file-format constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the closing safety clause is terse to the point of ambiguity rather than genuinely informative.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should say what the call returns (project id? info?) and whether it replaces or adds state. It covers the input path convention but leaves the effect on existing project state and the 'activate' behavior unexplained, which is thin for a 3-parameter state-loading tool.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds nothing beyond it — it never mentions the optional 'id' parameter or the undocumented 'activate' boolean, whose default and effect (does it make the project current?) are unknown. Only the required 'path' has any semantic clarity, and that comes from the schema text itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Load a .spriteproj.json') and ties it to its counterpart sprite_save_project, so the round-trip is obvious. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling state-changing tools like sprite_new_project or sprite_select_project, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 path-resolution rule (relative to output root or absolute) is real usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over sprite_new_project or sprite_select_project, nor any prerequisite such as whether the target project must not already exist. Usage must be inferred from the name and format constraint.

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