mcp_servers_reload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it reloads configurations from disk, but does not disclose potential side effects such as whether running servers are restarted, whether existing connections are dropped, or whether invalid configuration could cause disruptions. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool that affects all MCP servers.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, making it an ideal size for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks any context about the tool's relationship to sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer reload over restart), and it doesn't address failure modes or what happens after reloading. This is adequate but incomplete for an agent that needs to decide among similar MCP management tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already provides complete coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, and the description does not need to add parameter-related information.

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 action (reload), the resource (all MCP server configurations), and the source (from disk). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mcp_servers_restart or mcp_servers_start by specifying a configuration reload rather than a service restart.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mcp_servers_restart or skill_mcp_reload. There is no mention of scenarios like 'after editing config files' or exclusions (e.g., 'use restart if you need to fully restart servers'). The intended use is implied but not stated.

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