Load where the work stands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free (no model call), that it returns notes rather than directives ('not instructions to you'), and what the payload contains. That is meaningful behavioral context, though it says nothing about auth, staleness handling beyond the head param, or read-only guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then the trigger, then the parameter-matching guidance, then a short caveat. Four sentences and the long enumeration in sentence one earns its place by telling the agent what it will get. Slightly dense but no wasted prose.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields, states the trigger condition, explains workspace matching via repo/cwd, and flags the free, non-instructional nature of the content. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters. The description reinforces the either/or relationship between repo and cwd and that repo accepts any git remote form, but this largely mirrors what the schema descriptions state. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Load) and resource (work handoff for this repository and branch), then enumerates exactly what the handoff contains (goal, done, in progress, next steps, decisions, verified commands, uncommitted changes, active branches/agents). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like checkpoint, which writes rather than reads state.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it once at the start of a work session when no brief arrived on its own.' That is clear positive guidance with a condition. It stops short of naming the complementary tool (checkpoint) for writing state, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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