load_context

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool reads existing stored context rather than modifying it ('读取'), and it enumerates the kinds of data returned: preferences, rules, project status, and confirmed memories. It does not detail failure modes or return formatting, but the core read-only behavior is 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The mandatory call-time instruction is front-loaded, followed immediately by a compact list of what is loaded. Every clause contributes essential information.

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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers when to call it, what it loads, and which optional parameter matters for project context. It does not explicitly describe the result format, but the 'loads context' semantics make the return behavior reasonably inferable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps to the parameters ('关键词' to query and '指定项目' to project) and adds limited meaning beyond the schema, such as implying the project parameter is used to load project status. No additional syntax or filtering details are provided.

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 identifies a specific action ('读取'/'loads') and a concrete resource: user long-term preferences, fixed rules, project status, and confirmed memories. It also states an explicit usage role ('must be called at the start of every task'), clearly separating it from the write-oriented sibling tools like remember and record_experience.

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 explicit timing guidance: '每个任务开始时必须先调用' ('must be called first at the start of every task'). It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but the mandatory position and read-only nature make the intended usage clear relative to the sibling tools.

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