godot_reload_scripts

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Force reload' and 'in memory', which clarifies scope but omits side effects, failure modes, or impact on running instances. This is minimal and offers little beyond the tool name itself.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, with no annotations describing safety or effects, the description lacks critical context about side effects or error conditions. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent to fully understand consequences of calling it.

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 description does not mention the parameter at all. Although the input schema contains a description for 'script_paths', the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage from the description's perspective. Since the description does not compensate for this low coverage, it adds no value in explaining parameter semantics.

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 action ('Force reload') and the resource ('modified GDScript resources in memory'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like godot_validate_script or godot_create_script. The purpose is immediately understandable without ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when reload is needed, or that alternatives like godot_validate_script might be used for validation. An agent would have to infer the use case (hot-reload after edits) without explicit direction.

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