reload_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the hot-reload behavior and notes no full recompile is needed, which conveys the lightweight, runtime-mutating nature. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on running processes) or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by tightly scoped WHEN/NOT FOR sections. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and exclusions. It does not explain return values or error handling, but that is not critical for a hot-reload utility and the guidance is otherwise complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'file' parameter, including a detailed description with an example path. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hot-reload') and identifies the exact resource ('single module from its source file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives like recompile and recompile_deps.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT FOR' sections clearly state the ideal scenario and, importantly, identify alternative tools for other cases. This provides direct decision-making guidance.

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