reload

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

The description fully discloses the internal steps: release stale process, start fresh code, remount live, and always releases first. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It could add more on error handling or prerequisites.

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?

Two sentences plus a concise example; every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the core action.

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 covers purpose, behavior, parameter meaning, and usage context. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. It could mention prerequisites like having an active connection, but overall it is near 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is the alias from connect(). This adds clear meaning, though it could include format or validation constraints.

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 reloads a persistent connection after editing its code, and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it replaces the manual release+connect+shapeshift cycle, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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?

It explicitly says to use after editing code and replaces the manual cycle, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other single tools like connect.

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