config_reload

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idemppotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses concrete side effects: changed constants are republished to every daemon and tool, newly enabled daemons are started, and interval changes apply on the next daemon tick. It also clarifies what does NOT happen (no CLI restart) and shows the return string format. The idemppotentHint is consistent with the described behavior — no contradiction.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph packs only high-value behavioral facts: file paths, no-restart mechanism, republish target, daemon side effect, tick deferral, and a return example. Slightly dense, but every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-param tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description thoroughly covers scope, mechanism, side effects, and return format. The one material gap is the unexplained 'force' parameter, which an agent must decide whether to pass when invoking.

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% and the description never mentions the 'force' parameter, so an agent cannot know whether force=true bypasses change detection, forces a re-read, or something else. The schema title 'Force' and its default of true provide only weak inference; the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Re-read the watched config files and hot-apply changed env knobs') and precisely names the affected files, including concrete paths. This specificity lets an agent distinguish it from sibling status tools like config_watch_status without inspecting schemas.

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 'hot-apply — no CLI restart' framing gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: after editing watched configs when changes must take effect in the live process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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