reload_constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the scope ('constraints only, not the full store') and hints at the outcome ('same block as session start'), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and condition, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value.

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 has a single optional parameter, no output schema, and a well-defined purpose, the description covers the necessary context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It could mention the result format or side effects, but for a simple reload tool it is nearly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'project_dir'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra value is added.

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 action ('re-surface') and the resource ('project's constraints'), and explicitly distinguishes it from a full store reload. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 specifies the condition for use ('when a long session has buried the ones injected at start') which provides clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the scenario is well-defined.

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