reload_connections

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the concrete side effects: pools for unchanged connections stay open while pools for changed/removed connections are closed. That lifecycle detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations and prevents surprise disruption.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then the side effects, then the caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description already names the change categories returned. The auto-reload caveat and pool-handling semantics round out everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies the call needs no input. Nothing further could be said about parameters here.

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 and resource ('reloads the connections file now') and the observable effect (reports what changed: added/changed/removed/unchanged). This is clearly distinct from siblings like open_connection, close_connection or list_connections, so an agent can select it without reading the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to call it ('usually not necessary: the file reloads itself when it changes'), which is the key routing signal for a zero-parameter tool. It leaves the positive trigger slightly implicit (force a reload on demand rather than waiting for file-watch).

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