reload_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool closes the stale in-memory copy and reopens from disk, and that the GUI is otherwise unaware of changes. It also describes the return value (confirmation or failure message).

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 well-structured with a main sentence, explanation, Args, Returns, and Example. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear behavior), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return information. The output is described even though no output schema is provided, making it complete.

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 schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains doc_name: it must match the name from list_documents. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: close and re-open a document to pick up external file changes. It uses a specific verb ('reload') and resource ('document'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_documents' by explaining the specific use case.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: after the document's .FCStd file has been modified by something outside the GUI. It provides context (e.g., headless freecadcmd script) and references list_documents for obtaining the correct doc_name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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