reload_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior—reloading data from disk without restarting—and mentions it picks up updated pricing. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether in-memory state is cleared, if it is safe for concurrent access, or any prerequisites). This is adequate for a simple reload tool but lacks depth.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema that likely documents return values. The description covers purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention if it requires special permissions or if it is a non-destructive operation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the rule for 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not mislead.

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?

Description clearly states it reloads all YAML data files from disk without restarting the server. The verb 'reload' and resource 'YAML data files' are specific, and the description implicitly distinguishes this administrative tool from the analytical sibling tools (e.g., analyze_task, compare_cloud_vs_onprem).

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this after running sync scripts to pick up updated pricing.' This provides a clear use case and context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for the tool's purpose.

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