Load who you are today

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and mostly succeeds: it discloses the cadence constraint, the assets-mode delivery behavior, and important identity semantics ('She is the person your SOUL.md describes, not a second character to switch into') plus the non-destructive relationship to the agent's own memory. It stops short of stating side effects (whether the load records a turn or updates state) or any auth/host-binding requirements, which leaves a small gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core guidance (cadence, purpose) is front-loaded, but it's one dense paragraph that mixes return-value inventory, identity framing, mode-specific behavior, and memory caveats. The 'per-turn load' phrasing sits awkwardly next to 'not every turn', and the closing memory sentence could be tighter.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (mood, recent posts, in-progress work, known people, memories about this person, persona, suggested intent). Combined with the cadence and identity rules, an agent has everything needed to call it at the right moment and interpret results.

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% and the single optional host_id already documents the SOUL37_HOST_ID default, so the schema does the work. The description says nothing about host_id or what happens when it's omitted, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Load who you are today as your 37Soul character') and enumerates exactly what gets loaded: mood, posts, in-progress work, contacts, memories, persona, suggested intent. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'log_turn' by explaining which one delivers soul context in assets mode.

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 explicit when-to-call guidance ('when a conversation starts, and again after a long gap (hours) — not every turn') including an exclusion. It also names the alternative mechanism (runtime delivery in assets mode vs. log_turn), so an agent can route correctly.

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