wps_reload_addin

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a hot update requiring no restart, and it affects the add-in code immediately. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., state loss, reinitialization impact) or any prerequisites or permissions, which would have been useful for a mutation-like operation.

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 two concise sentences in Chinese: first defines the purpose and benefit, second explains the usage context. Every part is essential, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and benefit.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage trigger, and default parameter behavior. Missing information (e.g., return value, error conditions) is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, but could be slightly more complete if it mentioned that it returns nothing or indicates success.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear enum and description. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating the default behavior when 'host' is omitted ('所有三个宿主都重载'), which is not captured in the schema. This helps the agent understand optionality.

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 action ('reload addin code'), the resource ('specified host's WPS add-in'), and the benefit (hot update without restart). It distinguishes itself from sibling document-operation tools by being a maintenance/reload utility, and the title 'reload_addin' reinforces this.

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: after modifying add-in JS (including republish/manual sync). It also explains the default behavior when 'host' is omitted. No alternative tools exist among siblings, so no exclusion criteria are needed, but explicit when-not-to-use is absent.

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