reload_config

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool re-reads two specific configuration files, implying it refreshes application state. For a zero-parameter, non-destructive read operation, this is adequate behavioral disclosure.

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?

Exactly one sentence, no fluff. Every word is meaningful and adds to understanding.

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 no output schema and a straightforward operation (reload config), the description is complete. It specifies the files involved and the trigger condition. Could optionally mention that existing connections remain active, but not required for basic understanding.

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?

Tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds value by specifying which files are reloaded, beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Re-read') and the specific resources ('Thunderbird prefs.js and credentials.toml'), and provides context ('after editing either'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which perform list, search, read, or send operations on mail/folders, not config reload.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use the tool ('after editing either'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, this is sufficient.

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