reload

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, it discloses two behaviors an agent could not infer: the operation is refused in specific game states, and the call blocks until the Riot UI is restored. Both are critical for planning around latency and failure, and neither is stated in structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences in priority order: what it does, when it fails, and that it blocks. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (refusal states) is not buried.

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-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers invocation, refusal conditions, and completion semantics ('waits until the Riot UI is back'). It does not say what is returned on success or how a refusal surfaces to the caller, which would complete the picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that does not exist.

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 ('Reloads the client page'), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling actions like navigate, state, or snapshot. The parenthetical reference to an external tool is less useful than naming a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumerates the six states in which the call is refused (Matchmaking, ReadyCheck, ChampSelect, GameStart, InProgress, Reconnect), which is a concrete when-not-to-use rule an agent can act on. It does not point to an alternative action for those states, so use guidance is clear but not complete.

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