Reload Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: it always reloads the entire node list and cannot target a single node, plus the rationale about in-memory list replacement. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the when-to-use condition and a short note on the omitted per-node variant. Three sentences, all earning their place, though the parenthetical endpoint path is slightly more detail than strictly necessary.

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 an output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies everything the agent needs: purpose, trigger condition, scope, and the reason no per-node variant exists.

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 takes no parameters (count 0), so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or targeting options exist.

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) and resource (the Oxidized node list) plus the origin of the data (router.db, SQL, HTTP), and clarifies the scope is all nodes. The contrast with oxidized-web's per-node reload makes the behavior unambiguous without needing the schema.

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 says when to use it ('after devices were added, removed or changed in the source') and why (avoid waiting for the next refresh). It also explains why the per-node alternative is deliberately not offered, heading off a likely agent confusion.

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