reload_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the live-state-mutation effect (index is replaced in a running server) and that the default source is the launch-time path. It stops short of stating failure behavior (invalid path, parse errors) or whether the previous index is restored/discarded on failure, which matters for a state-replacing 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?

Three tight sentences: what it does first, the default behavior second, the use cases last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-optional-parameter operational tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, default source, and motivation. The remaining gap is operational edge cases (what happens if the path is invalid or the file is malformed, and whether the server's current index survives a failed reload).

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% and the schema already documents graph_path including the omitted-path default, so the description's sentence about the default merely restates it. The phrase 'a different repository's graph' adds slight semantic color (what a path typically points to) but no format or validation detail.

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 ('Reload the relational index from a graph.json file') plus the key property that it happens 'without restarting the MCP server'. No sibling tool does anything comparable, so it is trivially distinguishable from the query/analysis tools listed.

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 gives two named scenarios for use: pointing a running server at a different repository's graph, and picking up changes after re-running `gm run`. That is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for an operational tool.

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