ctx_load_tool_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that loaded tools become callable without reconnecting, that some MCP clients need a tool-list refresh, that direct calls work even if tools/list does not show them, and that CONTEXT_MCP_TOOL_PROFILE=full loads everything upfront. It does not cover auth, idempotency, or return behavior, but it is substantially informative.

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 front-loads the core action before moving to the "all" shortcut and client-refresh troubleshooting. The troubleshooting sentence is long but earns its place by explaining a likely failure mode and concrete alternatives.

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?

For a tool that mutates the session's available toolset, the description covers the operation, the special "all" value, client visibility caveats, and two fallback paths. It does not describe return values or invalid-group errors, but no output schema exists and the critical operational context is present.

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 required parameter already documents group names, examples, and the "all" special value. The description repeats that group names come from ctx_tool_groups and that "all" loads every remaining tool, but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Load one additional group of ContextQ tools into this session." It distinguishes the action from the sibling ctx_tool_groups by explaining that group names come from that listing tool, so an agent can tell which tool loads versus lists groups.

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?

It tells the agent to get group names from ctx_tool_groups and explains that passing "all" loads every remaining tool. It also gives clear fallback behavior for clients that do not refresh their tool list. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the context is clear.

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