Load inventory or policy via Core paging for a previously addressed experience, returning value, serialized bytes, and content hash without execution.
Load inventory or policy for a previously addressed experience using Core paging. Mutates bounded memory; returns value, serialized bytes and content hash; no execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | Yes | ||
| coordinate | Yes | ||
| universe_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully adds that memory mutation is bounded, that it returns value/serialized bytes/content hash, and that it triggers no execution. That last clause is genuinely clarifying for a load tool. It doesn't cover failure modes or repeat-invocation behavior, so not a 5.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then the mutation/return/no-execution facts in a compact semi-colon list. Little waste, though 'using Core paging' is opaque filler for most readers.
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?
With no output schema, the description's return-value disclosure (value, serialized bytes, content hash) is necessary and present. However, for a non-idempotent mutating loader, the semantics of universe_id/coordinate and the consequence of re-invoking are missing, leaving an agent under-informed at call time.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the param burden. It maps the resource enum values ('inventory or policy'), which is real added meaning, but leaves coordinate and universe_id entirely unexplained beyond the pattern/range constraints already in the schema. Partial compensation only.
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 (Load) and resource set (inventory or policy) scoped to a previously addressed experience. The domain jargon 'Core paging' and 'previously addressed experience' is not explained, and sibling differentiation is only implicit (it presumes implicit_address_experience ran first), so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase 'previously addressed experience' hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the seven siblings. An agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.