Load Context

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context on top: the context is stored in the session and can be referenced by its ID, which is not apparent from the annotations. It also implies session-scoped state, which is useful for the agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example workflow is concise and each step adds strategic context, helping the agent understand sequencing without being verbose or redundant. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity and the rich annotations/schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role, session storage, and integration with other tools. No output schema is needed, and the description covers all essential operational context.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning that context can be referenced by its ID (which maps to context_id). No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Load text content into the RLM session for processing.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the typical first step in RLM processing, which is a unique role.

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: 'This is typically the first step in RLM processing.' It also gives a concrete numbered workflow showing how rlm_load_context fits with other tools, making it clear when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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