yaaif_file_load_context

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral facts itself. It does add useful behavior: file_id can be either a durable UUID or ADK artifact filename, and version selects a historical revision. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, what the return payload is, or error behavior, leaving the safety/behavior profile under-specified.

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 sentences, roughly 25 words; the action and key identifier guidance are front-loaded. The phrase 'via file_load_context' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but it does not materially hurt concision.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description leaves critical invocation details unspecified: where file_id/version go in the schema, how agent_id/session_id relate, and what the returned extracted text looks like. It is too thin to support reliable first-time calling despite the useful identifier hint.

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 three generic parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the arguments. It mentions file_id and version but never maps them into the schema fields or the open `arguments` object, and it ignores agent_id and session_id entirely. This provides partial but insufficient parameter semantics.

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 states a clear action and object: 'Load extracted text', and adds useful identifier semantics (durable UUID or ADK artifact filename, optional version). It does not differentiate from closely named siblings such as yaaif_file_get_extracted, but the core purpose is not tautological.

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 mention of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as yaaif_file_get_extracted or yaaif_load_artifacts; there is no when-not or exclusion. The only guidance is a parameter-level instruction about file_id/version, which does not address tool selection.

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