Reload all scripts from YAML

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond that by naming the underlying service (script.reload) and disclosing the effect (re-reads scripts.yaml/packages, re-registers script entities), which tells the agent this is a safe state-refresh rather than a data mutation. It does not discuss any error or failure behavior, 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, followed by the mechanism and the return type in three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 parameterless reload tool with an output schema already present, the definition covers purpose, mechanism, side effects, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify here, and it correctly adds no redundant parameter prose.

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 (reload) and resource (all scripts from YAML), and the mention of scripts.yaml/packages makes it clearly distinct from siblings like automations_reload_automations and automations_reload_scenes. An agent can pick this apart from the other reload tools without opening any 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?

Explaining that it re-reads scripts.yaml/packages implies the use case (pick up file edits without restarting), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer it over automations_reload_automations or system_reload_all, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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