gk_reload_abilities

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that the tool is meant to retry a background process that failed at startup, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 30 words. The action verb is front-loaded ('Force a re-fetch'), and every phrase is meaningful. No redundant 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. It could optionally mention what the tool returns or whether it makes network calls, but the given context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. Schema coverage is 100% (by default). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4.

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 action ('Force a re-fetch' and 'refresh') and the specific resources (WordPress Abilities API catalog and GravityKit product tool list). It also provides distinct use context (after fixing a failed background load), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: after fixing a WP/network/cert issue that prevented background load. This provides strong contextual guidance. While it does not mention when not to use it, the tool's specificity implies it is not for routine refreshing, so the guidance is clear enough.

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