reload_file

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

No annotations exist beyond title, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'best-effort' and 'bumping mtime' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file modification, required permissions) or safety profile. The behavioral impact is incompletely described.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second clarifies limitations. No redundant words, and critical information is 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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and constraints but lacks parameter details (e.g., expected format) and does not address error cases. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to the lone parameter 'file'. It only says 'for a file' without specifying format, path type, or allowed values. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('triggers') and resource ('GMod's Lua autorefresh for a file'), with a specific mechanism ('bumping its mtime'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting limitations (covers edits, not new files/autoruns), which differentiates it from reload_addon or restart tools.

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 explicit context: 'covers edits, while new files and autoruns still need a restart.' This tells when to use (for edits) and when not (new files/autoruns), but does not name alternative tools directly. Still, it offers clear boundaries.

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