reload_swagger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses two primary effects: reloading the Swagger spec and clearing the type cache, which is useful transparency for a mutation-like operation. However, it does not describe consequences, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the project does not exist.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds the secondary effect. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one well-documented required parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and a significant side effect, leaving only minor gaps such as preconditions (e.g., project must already exist) and detailed behavioral consequences.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the projectName parameter is already documented as '项目名称'. The description reinforces the project context but does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 ('重新加载' / reload) applied to a clear resource (the project's Swagger spec), and it also names the secondary effect of clearing the type cache. This is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling clear_type_cache tool beyond the main reload purpose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use reload_swagger instead of related tools like clear_type_cache or add_swagger_project. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'reload' — e.g., after a Swagger spec changes — but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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