reload_rewrite_runtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behavioral facts: the operation can fail when the VPN runtime is not running, and persisted scripts are unaffected by the reload. It does not describe the response or whether the reload is disruptive to in-flight traffic, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, no waste, with the action front-loaded and the caveat and side-effect following. Every sentence 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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the failure precondition and the non-destructive scope of the reload, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of explaining what a successful reload changes at runtime.

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, so there is nothing to document and no schema gap for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('reload') and resource ('active rewrite snapshot from runtime.sqlite'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the similarly named reload_module_runtime sibling. It lacks any explicit sibling-routing sentence, so it falls 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as get_rewrite_runtime_status, rollback_rewrite_script, or reload_module_runtime. Usage is only implied by the name and the mention of failure conditions, which is insufficient guidance.

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