Load memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that default output is compact for strict MCP clients and warns that full_content may be rejected. It also implies a read-only load operation. However, it does not explicitly state if any state is modified or if there are side effects, but the reading is clear.

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 lengthy but each sentence is purposeful, providing critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, the level of detail is justified given the complexity of when to use the tool.

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 lack of an output schema, the description gives high-level components (identity, preferences, facts, session history) but does not detail the structure of the returned data. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent on how to parse the output, though the usage context is clear.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that lite=true produces compact output and full_content should be used sparingly due to client restrictions. It also ties the parameters to the use case of narrow vs. full payload, referencing search_memory for context.

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 it loads user identity, preferences, facts, and session history from persistent storage. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_memory by specifying that search_memory is for narrow questions, while load_memory is for full context at session start.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use IMMEDIATELY at the start of every session -- before responding to the user's first message, before calling any other tool.' It also lists keywords that signal stored context, says when not to skip, and when not to trigger (pure factual lookups). Alternatives like search_memory are mentioned.

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