script.reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'reload' without explaining side effects, what exactly gets reloaded (all scripts or current?), or whether it requires specific permissions. The agent gets minimal behavioral clues beyond the vague verb.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and condition. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Ideal conciseness.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks any mention of return values, error conditions, or confirmation that scripts are reloaded. For a tool this simple, a 3 is adequate but slightly incomplete.

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 description needs to add no parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is adequate in this respect. No parameter details are missing.

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 verb 'reload' and the resource 'Blender scripts', with a specific condition 'when Python execution is trusted'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like script.run_file (which runs a script) and script.report (which reports scripts). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 condition 'when Python execution is trusted' provides some usage context, but the description does not specify when NOT to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where reloading is inappropriate.

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