preload_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the extraction and compression behavior, and the default path behavior for project_path. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects, permissions, or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for such a memory-related tool.

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 and well-structured: opening purpose sentence, a usage guideline sentence, a clear Args list, and a Returns statement. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no required), and the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. It does not discuss error cases, prerequisites like existing memories, or permissions, but for a read-like preload operation this is reasonably complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates with a dedicated 'Args' section explaining both parameters: project_path (absolute path, defaults to cwd) and k (number of memories, default 8, max 20). This adds meaning far beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Pre-load context for a project or workspace' and 'Extracts relevant memories... returns them as a compressed summary.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'starting work on a known project to restore working context' distinguishes it from sibling search tools (e.g., search_hipocampo).

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 says 'Use this when starting work on a known project to restore working context,' providing a clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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