script-reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a trust condition but does not explain what reloading entails, side effects, or whether it re-executes or re-imports scripts. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately compact for a tool with no parameters and a simple action.

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?

The operation is simple and parameterless, but the description leaves ambiguity about what exactly is reloaded and the relationship to other script tools. It includes a useful trust prerequisite but is otherwise minimally 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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The absence of parameter information is acceptable, and no additional detail is required.

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 action verb ('reload') with a clear resource ('Blender scripts') and adds a condition ('when Python execution is trusted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script-run_file, though 'Blender scripts' remains somewhat broad.

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 provides a prerequisite ('when Python execution is trusted') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as script-run_file or script-report. It does not state when not to use it or what scenarios call for reloading.

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