sc:load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions 'loading' and 'restoration', but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting context), requirements, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies session state.

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 sentence with additional category and priority information. It is concise and front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted text, though it could be expanded with critical behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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 the presence of many sibling tools, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient depth. It does not explain the full behavior of loading and restoration, such as what happens to existing context, how cross-session works, or what the return value is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 individual parameter descriptions are already present. The tool description adds high-level context but does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Project context loading and cross-session restoration'. It includes a category and priority, which adds context. However, it could be more specific about what 'project context' entails, but it is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools (e.g., sc:analyze, sc:build), there is no mention of when to prefer sc:load, nor any conditions or prerequisites.

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