load_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it warns that omitting mass_mg silently defaults gravimetric columns to 1.0 mg, producing numbers that 'appear' but are 'simply wrong.' It also discloses the return shape at a high level. Side effects and error behavior are not covered, but the default-value behavior is a significant transparency win.

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 paragraphs with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The mass_mg warning earns its place because it prevents a likely silent misinterpretation.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description provides a clear purpose, a high-level return description, and the critical mass_mg gotcha. However, it omits instrument semantics and does not explicitly position the tool relative to siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 must compensate. It gives strong semantic and consequence-level meaning for mass_mg, but path and instrument are left with no explanation beyond their names and types.

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 action ('Load one cell file'), names the resource, and says it returns a handle plus what the data can support. This is distinct from sibling tools like list_cells and collect, which operate at a different scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The intended use is implied by 'Load one cell file,' and the mass_mg paragraph is parameter advice rather than tool-selection guidance.

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