reload_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important side effect that existing connection pools are closed and new configuration is loaded, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention failure behavior, whether active queries are disrupted, or what happens if connections.json is invalid.

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 with no filler. The core action and the key side effect are both front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a parameterless administrative action, this is nearly complete: it names the source file, the side effect, and the restart-free benefit. It could add failure-mode or validation details, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description usefully names the source file 'connections.json', which adds operational context beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Reload') and resource ('connections from connections.json file') and clarifies it happens without restarting the MCP server. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/query tools like list_connections and query.

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 phrase 'without restarting the MCP server' conveys the key scenario: applying configuration changes dynamically. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to recognize when reloading is appropriate.

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