claude_load_persistence_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: returns head+tail excerpts, head_ratio is settings-controlled, and max_chars_per_file caps output. It does not directly state that the operation is non-mutating or describe failure behavior, but for a context-loading operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear optional-fields section. There is no filler or repetition of schema structure; every sentence adds functional value.

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 simple optional-parameter interface, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return truncation behavior, and parameter semantics. It does not mention what happens if persistence files are missing or how this differs from claude_read_persistence, but the presence of an output schema and the startup-context guidance make this sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does: 'include' is a subset of files (agents|projects|memory), None means all three, and max_chars_per_file is a per-file character cap. It slightly defers the default to settings while the schema specifies 20000, but overall it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Load the persistence files as context for the current session.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and adds return-behavior detail, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling claude_read_persistence, so the agent must infer the distinction from context signals.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of each session to hydrate orchestrator memory before dispatching tasks.' However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name an alternative tool such as claude_read_persistence, so the exclusion side is missing.

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