hcl_load_plan

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: it hash-checks the plan and does not open the HCL GUI, indicating a headless integrity-checking load path.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to purpose or behavior, and the key action comes first.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves out important details about the artifact directory and what happens on hash mismatch. No output schema exists, so the description could do more to explain the result of loading and checking the plan.

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 one required parameter, artifact_directory, with 0% description coverage. The description only links it indirectly through 'exported plan' and does not explain what the directory must contain, its expected layout, or whether the path must exist.

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 specific action and resource: 'Hash-check and reload an exported plan.' It is clear enough to distinguish this as a plan-loading/verification operation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby plan tools such as hcl_validate_plan or hcl_open_project.

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 implies the tool is for reloading an exported plan, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over hcl_validate_plan, hcl_stage_plan, or hcl_restore_config.

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