gc_reload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job explaining the three action modes (status/preview/apply), the 'live-safe' distinction, and that all_safe excludes dangerous-sync and restart-required targets. It could add more about side effects or rollback behavior, but for a reload tool the safety semantics are reasonably disclosed.

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 well-organized with clear action/target/use-after/legacy sections. It's longer than minimal but every section earns its place — the target list is useful despite being partially redundant with the schema. The use-after section is the most valuable addition. Slightly verbose with the full target enumeration repeated, but structurally sound and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is thorough. It covers actions, targets, legacy compatibility, and usage scenarios. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but given no output schema exists, some guidance on what preview/apply return would strengthen it. Overall quite complete for its complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters have documented descriptions in the schema. The description adds value by enumerating target examples and clarifying the legacy vs modern target naming (telegram vs telegram_routing, etc.), and explains the all_safe expansion semantics beyond what the schema offers. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full coverage, with modest added value.

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 purpose as a 'Runtime config reload control plane' with specific verbs for actions (status, preview, apply). It lists concrete target examples and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the config reload mechanism among gc_* tools. The verb-action pairing and resource targets are 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 description explicitly states 'Use after: editing secrets.toml or YAML config, swapping models in LM Studio, rotating API keys, updating workflow definitions...' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also documents legacy section names for backward compatibility, helping the agent decide between target vs section parameters. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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