load_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 declares 'Read-only' and explains token budgeting and gate warnings. It does not detail side effects or rate limits, but for a read operation, the behavioral traits are adequately disclosed. It could be more thorough on what happens on multiple calls, but it already states the re-call condition.

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 three sentences totaling about 60 words. It is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and read-only note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancies. Highly efficient and well-structured.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is loaded, token budgeting, usage timing, and safety (read-only). It does not detail the exact format of the markdown resume, but given the task-oriented nature, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including token counts for presets. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely reiterates. Therefore, the description provides no incremental value for parameter understanding, meeting the baseline.

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 token-budgeted markdown resume of Agentpack state, listing specific content (Task Passport, git state, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('resume of Agentpack state'), making the purpose unmistakable. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'resume', the detailed content description provides sufficient distinction.

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 advises when to call ('at the start of a session or task, before reading code') and when to re-call ('only for a different query or budget'). It implies read-only usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with sibling tools, which would strengthen the guidance, but the given context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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