reload_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful context that the reload is hot (no restart). It does not say what happens if services.yaml is malformed, whether the reload is atomic, or whether partial configs can be applied — meaningful gaps for a reload operation, though mitigated by the annotation coverage and the output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target file, followed by the condition and the no-restart benefit. Nothing is wasted and nothing extraneous is included.

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 (so return values need no explanation) and read-only annotations, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. The only missing piece is failure/validation behavior when the edited file is invalid.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to explain.

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 ('Re-read') and a specific resource ('services.yaml'), which no sibling tool touches (siblings are list_services, describe_service, check_service, run_scenario, etc.). An agent can identify this as the config-reload action without opening 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?

It names an explicit trigger condition: use it after services.yaml has been edited, and states the key benefit (no server restart needed). It does not name an alternative or exclusion, but for a config-reload tool there is no plausible competing sibling, so 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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