pve_node_service_reload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Reload a service' is vague—it doesn't specify whether this is a safe operation, if it requires administrative permissions, potential side effects (e.g., service downtime, configuration reload), or what happens on failure. The description fails to add any meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it excels in conciseness by avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a service reload operation likely involving system-level changes), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use. The agent lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or how this tool differs from similar siblings, making the description inadequate for the tool's likely impact.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('node' and 'service'). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, such as valid service names or node constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 'Reload a service' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_node_service_reload' without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('reload') and resource ('service'), but lacks specificity about what 'reload' entails (e.g., restarting, reconfiguring) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'pve_node_service_restart', 'pve_node_service_start', or 'pve_node_service_stop', leaving the agent unclear on the exact action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific node or service state), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_restart', which could lead to misuse. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate scenarios for invoking this tool.

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