Recarregar skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: it makes newly added skills visible without a server restart. However, it says nothing about whether the reload interrupts anything, how costly it is, or what happens if a skill is malformed. Some useful behavior is conveyed but coverage is partial.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and tucks the usage cue into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted. It is tightly scoped and easy to parse.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and trigger, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not clarify what signal confirms the reload succeeded or when the reload is unnecessary, leaving a small but real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema shows. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 're-reads the skill folders' (Relê as pastas de skills). This is distinct from sibling skill tools like listar_skills, ler_skill, and recomendar_skills, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them. An agent can still infer the action is a re-scan rather than a listing.

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?

It states a clear trigger condition: use it after adding a new skill without restarting the server ('use depois de adicionar uma skill nova sem reiniciar o servidor'). That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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