Reload Plugin

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, indicating the tool is destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the constraint about the MCP plugin and the development use case, going beyond what annotations state.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core verb and resource. Every sentence adds value.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and well-defined annotations, the description is complete. It covers the action, constraints, and use case without needing additional details.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'by name', which aligns with the parameter name 'plugin_name', but doesn't provide additional details like format or examples. Given the single self-explanatory parameter, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'reload' and the resource 'QGIS plugin by name', including an important constraint that the MCP plugin itself cannot be reloaded. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plugin_info or list_plugins.

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 provides explicit when-not guidance ('Cannot reload the MCP plugin itself') and context ('Useful during plugin development'). While it does not name an alternative tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to determine appropriate usage.

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