Reload bridge

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details that the tool reimports loaded mcp.*/utils.* modules, returns a list, and performs a hot-reload. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description clarifies the mutation is limited to reimports.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: first states the action, second explains the mechanism, third advises when to use. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, mechanism (reimports specific modules), return value (list), and usage timing. It is self-contained and adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, the description correctly implies no inputs are needed, which adds value by confirming simplicity. Schema coverage is irrelevant, but the description reinforces the lack of required arguments.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: hot-reload the bridge's Python within TouchDesigner. It specifies the verb (reload) and resource (bridge's Python), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bridge_logs by focusing on reimporting modules.

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 'Use after editing bridge code,' providing clear context for when to invoke. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for the tool's narrow scope.

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