reload_sources

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 're-discover' without disclosing side effects, safety implications, reversibility, or what happens to existing sources. This is a significant gap for a state-modifying operation.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes. It is a model of conciseness without sacrificing necessary context.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage scenario. However, it omits behavioral details like return value or side effects, though this is partially addressed under behavioral transparency. Overall, it is complete enough for a minimal tool.

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 the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. Baseline for zero parameters 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 clearly states the tool's function with the verb 're-discover' and resource 'knowledge sources from config', setting it apart from sibling tools like search_knowledge and list_sources. The action is specific and unambiguous.

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 'Use after modifying ~/.knowledgebased.json' provides a clear contextual trigger for when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a parameterless reload command.

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