brain_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the brain carries forward prior session data ('never start cold') and explains the behavior of scope='all' for cross-brain thinking. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a load operation the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: what loads, when to call, persistence benefit, and scope option. No fluff.

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 has simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains what context is loaded and the rationale, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not describe return format, but for a context loader that's not essential.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what's in the schema, mentioning scope='all' but the schema also documents that. Therefore baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the brain and lists its components (identity, soul, memories, constraints, agent instructions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like brain_query or brain_remember by framing this as the session-start loader. The verb 'load' and resource 'brain' are specific.

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 instructs to call this at the start of every session, providing clear timing guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough. Sibling tools exist but are not compared.

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