reload

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive semantics. The description adds important context beyond that: the session, loaded file, and annotations survive, while live attaches terminate. It does not cover authentication or failure modes, but the core behavioral effect is 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?

One compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded, followed by preserved-state details and the attach consequence. Every clause earns its place.

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-argument restart tool with annotations covering safety flags and no output schema, the description supplies all necessary operational context: what is preserved, what ends, and when to prefer this over a client restart.

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?

Zero parameters means the schema imposes no parameter burden, and no parameter-specific description is needed. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the empty schema is fully sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restart the borer server on its rebuilt binary') and immediately clarifies scope by naming preserved state: session, loaded file, annotations. It is distinguishable from client restart and from load_binary/load_project siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after rebuilding borer') and names the alternative ('instead of restarting the client'). The note 'live attaches end' adds an operational consequence, but there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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