reload

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe (e.g., config validation before applying), whether it's destructive (overwrites current config), or what error conditions exist. The importance of this transparency is high given no annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the action and the crucial parameter constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Reload'. However, splitting into two sentences (action, then source format) might improve readability.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description omits what the tool returns (success status, error details, etc.). Given the operation complexity (reloading server config) and numerous sibling tools, the description lacks context about expected outcomes and when to use this tool over similar ones.

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 parameter 'source' is just a string. The description adds significant value by clarifying it can be 'raw JSON string (starts with '{') or path to a JSON config file.' This reduces ambiguity and helps the agent choose the correct format.

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 action ('Reload Caddy config') and specifies the source format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_config (read-only) or adapt_config (isolated validation). However, it could be more explicit about what 'reload' entails (e.g., applying new configuration in-place).

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It explains the source parameter format but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., config validity), expected side effects, or alternatives among siblings. An agent given this description might not know when to prefer reload over adapt_config or delete_route.

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