sys.capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that the tool can hot-reload the plugin directory (a state-changing side effect) and that it reports provider/privilege/stealth metadata, implying a read-only discovery default. However, it omits the shape of the returned capability report and any cost/permission considerations.

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?

A single densely packed line with the discovery purpose front-loaded ahead of the plugin-reload secondary role. Nothing is wasted, though the compressed phrasing borders on cryptic.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should help convey what a 'capability report' contains; it gestures at providers and privilege/stealth metadata but not structure, count, or format. Adequate for identifying the tool's role but thin for an agent relying on it to plan subsequent calls.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose pointer by calling the tool the 'plugin hot-load entry,' which corroborates but does not extend the schema's reload_plugins semantics.

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 names a specific function: capability discovery of currently available providers per seam plus privilege/stealth metadata, and identifies itself as the plugin hot-load entry point. The verb+resource (discovery of providers) is concrete enough that an agent knows this is an introspection tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (none of which are close in function).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when the reload path should be preferred, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The only implicit signal is that it's the plugin hot-load entry point, which an agent must infer rather than being told.

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