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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden. It usefully discloses what context is loaded and that a given focus biases recall toward the most relevant memory, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates session state, or what permissions are needed.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and loaded content, followed by the key sequencing instruction. There is no wasted text, and the analogy to session rehydrate adds quick orientation.

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 two-optional-parameter context-loading tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation behavior: what it loads, when to call it, and how focus affects recall. The main remaining gaps are explicit read-only/security disclosure and differentiation from the sibling session rehydrate tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters. The description adds a little meaning for focus by saying it retrieves "the most relevant memory," but it does not mention the workspace parameter at all, leaving parameter semantics essentially at the schema-provided baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ("Load") and resource ("this account's working context") and enumerates the loaded content: ground truths, open quests, active failures, and relevant memory. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling wyrm_session_rehydrate or from wyrm_context_build.

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?

It gives clear usage context with "Call this first" and "at the start of a session," which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or name alternatives, but the primary timing guidance is strong.

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