万忆触发LOAD钩子

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the main behavior: automatic memory injection at startup, including pinned/high-frequency memory and checkpoint-resume checking. However, it omits side effects, failure handling, read-only vs. mutating behavior, and what happens when no memory exists.

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 a single compact, front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds useful information about the hook type, the trigger, the action, and the memory categories involved, with no filler or repetition.

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 parameter-free hook, the trigger and primary behavior are present, and there is no output schema to account for. However, the internal terminology is undefined, and the lack of side-effect or invocation details leaves the description adequate but not fully complete for an agent deciding whether or 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail for the description to add, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 clearly identifies the operation ('auto-inject memory'), the trigger ('session startup'), and the memory categories involved ('pinned', 'high-frequency', 'checkpoint-resume check'). It is distinct from the STORE hook and load-progress siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling and relies on unexplained internal terms like '道级' and '法级'.

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 trigger context is stated explicitly: this hook runs automatically at session startup. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, whether it should ever be manually invoked, or how it compares with related siblings such as 万忆加载进度 or 万忆触发STORE钩子.

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