reload_source_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies that the tool reloads a cache, implying a mutation. It does not detail side effects, such as whether the operation is destructive or what happens to in-flight operations. However, for a simple cache reload with no parameters, the description is adequate.

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 three sentences: the first states the action, the second gives usage guidance, and the third specifies a condition. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, and a prerequisite. It could mention whether the operation is idempotent or what happens if not in registry mode, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 input schema fully covers the interface. The description does not need to add parameter information, and baseline is 4. It provides context about the source and mode, which complements the schema.

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 purpose: to reload the source registry cache from a specific source (demo.source_registry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on memory and ingestion operations, by specifying its unique function of refreshing enabled sources for insert/search filtering.

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 states when to use the tool: after adding or removing entries to refresh which sources are enabled. It also provides a condition for effectiveness: only works when running in registry mode. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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