Editor Reload Plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the reload kills the server, that the WebSocket transport drops, that the response shape differs by launch mode, that there is a 90-second timeout, and that PLUGIN_DISCONNECTED is raised with recovery diagnostics. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a destructive/disruptive 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 well-structured with clear mode separation and bullet-like formatting. It is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place by explaining critical behavioral differences and recovery steps. Slightly verbose in the timeout explanation, but justified given the complexity.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior, both response shapes, the failure mode, and the recovery procedure. The output schema exists, so return values are already structured. For a tool with this level of operational complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and handle the aftermath is missing.

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 the schema already documents the single optional session_id parameter. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reload the Godot editor plugin.' It then immediately distinguishes the two operational modes (plugin-managed vs externally launched), which clearly separates this tool from siblings like editor_manage or session_manage. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool's unique behavior is front and center.

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 explains when each behavior applies: plugin-managed default install vs externally launched server. It also tells the agent what to do after the reload (reconnect and call session_manage(op='list') to find the new session_id). This is strong usage guidance that routes the agent through the correct post-condition workflow.

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