reload_mod

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it explicitly states the operation is read-only, touches only the mod's settings, works under restricted flags, and describes the return values including settings and generation number.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by concise details on safety and return values. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states what happens, when to use it, why it is safe, and what the caller can expect in return. No critical information is missing.

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 has zero parameters)Skip; the schema already covers everything. The description adds relevant context about what the operation does and returns, which is useful even though no parameter documentation is needed.

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 action: re-read settings.lua and re-run the UEBridge mod in place, with the explicit outcome of no game restart. This clearly distinguishes it from status or evaluation tools like bridge_status and eval_lua.

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 provides clear conditions for use: it works when allow_eval and allow_writes are falseais and is the recovery path after eval was turned off. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the recovery-path framing gives strong situational guidance.

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