Reload NVDA plugins

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

Beyond annotations that only say this is not read-only but not destructive, it discloses the critical side effect that the add-on itself reloads, the bridge restarts on a new port, and calls in the next second may fail. That failure window and the "wait briefly, then check nvda_get_log" recovery instruction are exactly what an agent needs and are found nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose and analogy first, then the surprising side effect, then the mitigation. Front-loading is correct and every clause carries operational weight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description instead spends its budget on the transient failure window and the prerequisite, which are the real risks for this tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely 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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter schema 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Reload global plugins and app modules from disk") and anchors it to a familiar NVDA action (NVDA+control+F3). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 states the motivating scenario ("to try changed add-on code without restarting NVDA") and names a follow-up tool (nvda_get_log) for verifying the outcome, plus a prerequisite matching nvda_press_keys. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or naming alternative recovery paths, but the context is clear.

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