context_info

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: precedence is explicit, provenance is included, and runtime/system security is non-overridable. These details go beyond the basic safety hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding a key behavioral caveat. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only context-loading tool: it names sources, scope, precedence, provenance, and the security constraint. Since there is no output schema, the return format is not explicitly detailed, but the mention of 'merged context' and 'provenance' gives a sufficient picture.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond implying bounded source contents, which aligns with include_content and max_bytes_per_source. 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 specifies the verb 'Load' and the resource: the effective ChatGPT Pilot context chain, naming the exact files involved (~/.pilot/GPT.md, AGENTS.md, GPT.md) and their precedence/provenance. This distinguishes it from generic file-reading siblings like read_file or project_snapshot.

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 gives clear context about what this tool loads and that it is project-scoped, so an agent can tell when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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