caddy_reload_tool

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important guard: 'Requires confirm=true,' which informs the agent that confirmation is a prerequisite for the reload. However, it does not explain what happens if confirm is false (e.g., no-op vs. error), nor does it mention any side effects like brief downtime. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-constructed sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, when to do it, and a safety guard. It does not over-explain return values (output schema can handle that) or error cases. Minor gaps include lack of explicit alternative differentiation and behavior when confirm is false, but for a simple reload tool, it is adequate.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by directly stating 'Requires confirm=true,' giving the boolean parameter clear semantic meaning: it guards the actual reload. This adds value beyond the raw schema and clarifies the intended usage of the confirm flag.

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 Caddy after a Caddyfile change.' It specifies the exact resource (Caddy) and the trigger condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like infra_restart_tool, which likely handles broader service restarts. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit context for when to use: 'after a Caddyfile change.' This clearly implies the appropriate scenario. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from other infra tools. No misleading guidance is present.

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