job104_reload_server

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose the important behavioral trait that the stdio pipe is not interrupted, which is exactly the risk an agent would worry about with a restart. It says nothing about what else is lost or reset — in-flight requests, cached data, session state (note the sibling job104_check_session) — so a mutation-like operation remains partly opaque.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and follows with the purpose and the key safety guarantee. No filler.

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 no-argument, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers what happens and why, which is enough for correct invocation. It could go further by noting session/state loss or transient unavailability, but the essentials are present.

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 and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('優雅重新啟動 MCP 伺服器') plus the reason ('載入新編譯的代碼'), which is unambiguous. It is trivially distinguishable from the job104_* search/save siblings, so no explicit differentiation is needed.

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 trigger condition is stated: use it after code is recompiled, in order to load the new build. There are no competing alternatives to route against and no explicit 'when not to use', which keeps it out of the top band.

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