reload_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('reload'), but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, affects system state, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies settings.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool that likely mutates settings (implied by 'reload'), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to address critical aspects like what gets reloaded, confirmation of changes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'configPath' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as default behavior when no path is provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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') and the resource ('settings from config file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'init_user_config' or 'get_config_paths', which might involve similar configuration operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after config changes), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'init_user_config' or 'get_config_paths', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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