sim_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely important trait: omitted robot/usd fall back to defaults rather than the previously loaded values, which is a destructive-feeling reset. It says nothing about state loss, downtime, or permissions, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the alternative and the default-fallback caveat following. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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, and the description covers the core restart semantics and default fallback. However, for a 6-param mutation with zero annotation coverage, it leaves gui/ground unexplained and omits the disruption profile an agent would want before restarting a daemon.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 6 params, so the description must compensate. It names robot, usd, solver iterations (pos_iters) and self-collision (self_collisions), and clarifies default-fallback semantics for robot/usd, but it never mentions gui or ground and gives no format details for usd.

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?

States a specific verb (restart) plus resource (the daemon) and enumerates the spawn properties it can change (robot, USD, solver iterations, self-collision). This clearly separates it from sim_up/sim_down and from sim_set_params, which it names as the tool for live gains. It stops short of 5 only because 'daemon' is unexplained jargon for the Kit process.

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 gives the operative condition (change a spawn property) and contrasts it with the alternative for live values (sim_set_params), plus a note on why one restart beats one per experiment. There is no explicit statement about when NOT to reload versus sim_up/sim_down, so it is context rather than full routing guidance.

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