Reload scenes from YAML

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by explaining that the config file is re-read from disk, scene entities are re-registered, and scenes written by `automations_set_scene_config` survive the reload. It does not mention failure behavior when the YAML is invalid, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then supporting detail, then a one-line return note. The final 'Returns: list[dict]' line duplicates what the output schema already covers, which is the only wasted sentence.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer well. The only unaddressed element is what happens on reload failure (invalid scenes.yaml), which an agent calling a config-reload tool would benefit from knowing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. It correctly avoids inventing parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reload scenes from YAML') and names the underlying mechanism (the `scene.reload` service), so it is clearly distinguishable from automations_reload_automations, automations_reload_scripts, and automations_set_scene_config. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the effect of the reload and clarifies that scenes saved via `automations_set_scene_config` are included, which is decision-relevant. However, it never states when an agent should choose this over `automations_set_scene_config` or `automations_reload_all`/`system_reload_all`, nor any prerequisite (e.g., valid scenes.yaml). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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