Reload libraries

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds scope ('all' loaded libraries) and the intended beneficial effect, but it does not explain what the destructive aspect means in practice (e.g., whether unsaved state or in-memory changes are discarded).

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 immediately qualifies it with the reason to invoke it. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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, no-output-schema operation, the description covers what happens and why it is useful, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around timing (when in a workflow to run it) and any consequences of the destructive flag.

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 disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Schema description coverage is also 100%.

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?

Specific verb ('Reloads') plus resource ('all loaded libraries'), with a parenthetical stating the concrete effects: picking up part files changed on disk and repairing stale 'missing' parts. It is distinct from get_libraries/add_libraries/remove_libraries in meaning, but the description never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical ('picks up library part files changed on disk, fixes stale missing parts') tells the agent the situation this tool addresses. There is no explicit when-to-use rule, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling library tools it could be confused with.

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