mister_reload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Reload' implies a disruptive operation (restarting the core), but the description does not explicitly state consequences like lost unsaved state, required permissions, or duration. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Reload the current core') and immediately provides context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and when to invoke it. It is 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 description adds value by explaining when to use it (after config write). With no parameters needed, this is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 verb 'reload' and the resource 'current core on MiSTer-FPGA'. It also explains the purpose: applying changes after config write. This distinguishes it from siblings like mister_cfg_write or mister_launch.

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 explicitly says 'Use after changing settings with mister_cfg_write to apply changes', providing a clear usage context and a specific predecessor tool. It could mention unnecessary reloads, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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