reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses failure semantics by enumerating the errors[] fields and errorType values, which is genuine added context. However, it says nothing about success behavior, permissions, or what state changes, leaving the write/mutation profile undeclared.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The error-detail sentence is dense but earns its place by documenting the failure contract. No 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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must carry more. It covers the parameter and error shape reasonably, but omits success return values and the nature of the reload side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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% and the single 'file' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'omit to reload all' behavior that the description largely restates. No additional syntax or format detail is added, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Hot-reload') and resource ('.manim file'), with scope clarified by 'or all files if no file specified'. It is distinguishable from siblings like eval_manim or list_builders, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use reload versus alternatives such as eval_manim, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only 'when' signal is the implicit default of reloading all changed files when no file is given.

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