reload_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the reload is in-place ('the next tool call picks up the change'), and discloses the rejection of module types that would invalidate live session objects. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not detail the success/failure return format beyond what an output schema might imply.

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 two short sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second adding necessary usage and constraint context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage timing, constraints, and examples. It is sufficiently complete to allow an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 only the parameter name 'module_name' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by giving specific examples of valid values ('keyboard.py', 'screen.py') and explicitly rejecting others ('driver', 'server'), effectively conveying the expected parameter values and constraints despite the barren 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Reload') and resource ('a pure beebjit_mcp module'), and immediately distinguishes it from any sibling by noting it works without restarting the server. It also provides an intended use case (in-session development) and concrete examples, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('Intended for in-session development') and when-not-to-use guidance by specifying that only pure (IO-free) modules are supported and that reloading 'driver' or 'server' is rejected. This clearly delineates the tool's valid and invalid usage scenarios.

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