rlm_load_project

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

The description discloses token budgeting and optional path filtering, but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, or exact return structure. No annotations are provided, so the description partially covers behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: it defines the tool's output, mentions token budgeting, and gives a use case.

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 complexity of loading all project documents and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, token budget, and filtering. It could benefit from mentioning the return format or structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'token-budgeted' and 'path filtering,' which map directly to max_tokens and paths_filter. Baseline score of 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 loads a structured map of all project documents with content, specifying 'token-budgeted dump' and 'full-project exploration.' This distinguishes it from siblings like rlm_load_document, which loads a single document.

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 explicitly recommends use for full-project exploration, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like rlm_search or rlm_context.

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