Reload Profiles Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally. It details failure semantics (validates first, keeps running config on parse error), separates live-applied settings from restart-required settings, explains profile scoping versus operator behavior, and discloses session notifications. This far exceeds what the empty schema and absent annotations convey.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct information: when to use, failure handling, live vs. restart sets, scoping rules, and client notification. It is logically structured in paragraphs with the purpose front-loaded; minor redundancy (restating validation) keeps it from a 5, but no sentence is 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers preconditions, failure modes, effect scope, operator behavior, and side effects — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters; instead it appropriately uses the space to explain behavior, which is the only meaningful dimension for a no-arg tool.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Re-read profiles.yaml and apply it without restarting the gateway.' This clearly differentiates the tool from all siblings, which are scanning, quarantine, fetch, read, and cache tools — none touch profile reloading.

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 when to use it ('Use after editing the gateway profile config') and explains why it's necessary — edits on disk have no effect until this runs because the router filters from startup-loaded profiles. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling is a viable alternative, so the use case guidance is effectively complete.

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