project_config_reload_description

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot express: the scope of what is re-read, the fact that permissions/debug are untouched, the default-deny permission outcome for newly discovered devices, and the restart caveat for changed grants. It also names the description_changes field as the record of what moved.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence carries information. The middle sentence is dense, stacking two distinct rules plus a field name ('New devices get every permission false; changed grants need a restart (restart_required_for)'), which slightly taxes readability without wasting words.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and thin annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it covers scope, exclusions, trigger conditions, permission side effects, restart requirements and the feedback field. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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, so per the baseline this is a 4. The description goes further by naming result fields (description_changes, restart_required_for), but those are outputs rather than parameters, so no parameter-level semantics are added.

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?

States a precise verb (re-read) plus the exact resources pulled in (target, debuggers, com_ports, can_buses) and the destination (the running server), and explicitly excludes permissions and debug. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like project_config_set, project_config_describe and project_config_adopt_hardware.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: call it after project_config_set, project_config_adopt_hardware, or a hand edit, instead of restarting. It also names the exception condition (changed grants need a restart) so the agent knows when this tool will not suffice.

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