reload_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal behavior (closes the stale in-memory copy and reopens from disk), describes potential failure modes (document not loaded, no associated file), and notes that the return message will confirm or describe the failure. While it doesn't explicitly warn about unsaved changes being lost, the overall behavior is disclosed well.

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 and front-loaded: the opening sentence immediately states the core purpose. Subsequent sections (Args, Returns, Examples) are clearly labeled and concise. Every sentence earns its place, providing necessary context 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 single-parameter tool with a simple behavior, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, use case, parameter semantics, return values, and includes an example. The output schema exists and the description appropriately explains what the return will be, so no further details are needed.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an Args section that explains doc_name is 'The name of the open document to reload' and instructs that it 'Must match the name shown by list_documents.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field name, giving the agent precise guidance on how to provide the parameter.

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: 'Close and re-open a document to pick up external file changes.' This is a clear verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the unique use case of re-syncing with on-disk changes. It is not a tautology and clearly communicates the tool's function.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this AFTER the document's .FCStd file has been modified by something outside of FreeCAD's GUI process.' It also provides a concrete example (headless freecadcmd script) and explains why it is needed (the GUI is unaware of external changes). It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for the intended use case.

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