reload_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses automatic mode selection, force-recompilation of ScriptNodes, standalone re-execution, sys.path mutation, timeout capping, and output byte capture limits. This goes well beyond a generic action statement and tells the agent what side effects to expect.

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 organized effectively: purpose first, then modes, workflow, and finally parameter notes. Each paragraph adds necessary information, and the key distinguishing behavior is front-loaded. The length is justified by the tool's two-mode complexity.

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?

For a complex six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers most of what an agent needs: purpose, modes, workflow, sys.path effect, and policy caps. The main completeness gap is the undocumented command_id and idempotency_key parameters, which are likely important for execution control and retry semantics. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not a major gap.

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 provides zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains file_path, module_name, timeout_s, and max_output_bytes meaningfully. However, command_id and idempotency_key are not explained at all, leaving two parameters without any semantics beyond their names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reload a Python controller from a file on disk.' It goes further by distinguishing the two automatic modes (ScriptNode recompilation vs standalone re-execution), which clearly separates this tool from siblings like reload_script_node and execute_script. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 explains when each mode applies and names related tools and the workflow: write a .py file, reload_script, step_simulation to debug, then edit and reload. It also references execute_script as an alternative for shorter code, giving the agent concrete routing guidance. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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