Hot reload mods (remote F7)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the effect ('reloads all mod Lua from disk') and the context ('in the running game'), which conveys that the tool mutates the running game's state. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., resetting mod state, losing unsaved changes) or prerequisites beyond a running game, which would be helpful for a state-changing tool. The description is functional but not fully transparent about consequences.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Trigger Debug.Reload()'), then explains the effect and the recommended usage. Every sentence contributes necessary information, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the operational context (running game). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its purpose. Minor gaps like failure behavior or idempotency are not critical for this action, so the description is sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, as there is nothing to cover). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and none is missing. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Trigger Debug.Reload()' and the resource: 'reloads all mod Lua from disk'. It also provides a precise analogy to pressing F7 in-game, which makes the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools (game_status, game_logs, list_mods, etc.), this is the only one that performs a reload, so it is easily distinguished.

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: 'Use after deploying mod changes to the game's mods directory.' This is a clear trigger condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the unique action makes that less critical. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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