Reload Nodes

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

Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context by explaining that it reloads every node from the source, replacing the whole in-memory list, and clarifies that per-node reload would be misleading. It also states the return type (Dictionary with response message). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: it states the primary action and source, then provides usage context, then a caveat, then the return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage timing, behavior, and return type. It also addresses a potential point of confusion (per-node reload) explicitly. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). According to the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't add parameter details (there are none), but it does provide context about the operation's scope, which is sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reload'), resource ('Oxidized node list'), and source ('from its source (router.db, SQL, HTTP, ...)'). It distinguishes itself from the per-node reload by explicitly noting that per-node reload replaces the entire list and is deliberately not offered. This clearly differentiates from siblings like list_nodes or trigger_node_backup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after devices were added, removed or changed in the source' and explains the benefit ('without waiting for its next refresh'). It also notes that it always reloads every node, implying it is not suitable for single-node reloads, and explains why per-node reload is not available. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the per-node caveat serves as an implicit exclusion.

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