reload_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool 'closes the stale in-memory copy and reopens the file from disk,' which is useful. However, it does not warn about potential loss of unsaved local changes during the close/reopen cycle, which is a significant side effect. The return value descriptions are helpful, but the gap in side-effect disclosure prevents a higher score.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage context, args, returns, and an example. It is somewhat longer than necessary but each paragraph serves a purpose, and the example makes it easy to understand how to invoke the tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a full picture: what it does, when to use it, how to specify the argument, and what to expect in return. It considers failure cases like 'document not loaded, no associated file.' The only notable omission is the unsaved-changes warning, which would make it fully 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?

The schema only shows doc_name as a required string with 0% coverage from the description. The description adds substantial meaning by specifying that doc_name 'must match the name shown by list_documents' and by providing an example JSON call. This clarifies the expected format and source of the value, going beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Close and re-open a document to pick up external file changes.' It uses a specific verb ('reload') and resource ('document'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents or create_document by its focus on resyncing with disk.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'AFTER the document's .FCStd file has been modified by something outside of FreeCAD's GUI process.' It also gives a concrete example (headless freecadcmd script) and references list_documents for correct doc_name usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, though that is reasonably implied.

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