load_reconstructive_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: it replaces the current in-memory graph, writes from a specific sidecar file, and errors if the file is absent. However, it does not mention potential side effects on other memory structures or validation behavior, which slightly reduces transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes all critical details (source file, effect, error condition). There is no superfluous content; every part is necessary.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it restores, from where, the replacement action, and the error case. No additional context is required for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A score of 4 reflects that no additional parameter information is needed.

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 purpose: restoring a reconstructive graph from a sidecar file, replacing the current in-memory graph, and erroring if the file is missing. It specifically names the source ('<basename>-reconstructive.json') and the sister tool ('save_reconstructive_memory'), providing clear differentiation.

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 implies usage context (restoring a previously saved graph) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reconstruct_memory or other memory restoration tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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