m2_load_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that packages persist until session reset, that there is no unload operation, that reloading an already-loaded package is a harmless no-op, and that M2's reload machinery is fragile for dependent packages.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, lifecycle context, targeted reload guidance, and an Args section. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 tool's session-state side effects, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: persistence, no-op behavior, reload semantics, and dependency fragility. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that name must match the M2 search path and gives concrete examples, and it clarifies reload's meaning, default-appropriate usage, and the package-development workflow where it is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Load a Macaulay2 package into the session." It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining package lifecycle behavior (no unload, no-op when already loaded), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance for the reload parameter: use reload=True only when the disk source changed, leave False otherwise. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools, but the unique loading purpose and session-persistence note make the intended context clear.

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