reload_runtime_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Reload runtime settings from config files' without explaining what happens to current settings, whether invalid config files are handled, or whether the reload persists. The description hints at a side effect (overwriting runtime settings) but does not state it explicitly.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the action and source efficiently. However, it may be too terse for the underlying complexity, but for pure conciseness and structure it earns high marks.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters, no annotations, and only a two-line description. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description does not explain key behavioral aspects like config file discovery, path precedence, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool that reloads runtime settings, especially with siblings like 'configure_runtime' present.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters ('config_path' and 'local_config_path') or their relationship. Names are somewhat self-descriptive, but there is no information about precedence, required formats, or how they relate to 'config files'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Reload runtime settings') and the source ('from config files'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'configure_runtime' or 'get_config', the verb 'reload' and resource 'config files' make the core function unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'configure_runtime' or 'get_config'. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., after editing config files) or contrast with programmatic runtime configuration. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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