runtime_reload

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it refuses when the language server reports errors, and a failing script is disabled in the running game rather than aborting everything. That failure semantics go meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the refusal semantics, then the scope limit. Dense and waste-free; no padding. Could be marginally tighter 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when it fails, and its scope. Remaining gaps (return value, whether session_id is required in multi-game setups) are handled by the schema, so the description is essentially complete.

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 100% (files = scripts to reload, session_id tied to runtime_run), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description implies the files are 'changed scripts' but adds no format or multi-game selection detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (hot-reload) plus resource (changed scripts) and target (a running game), and adds the key property that state is preserved. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like runtime_run or runtime_step, which do not reload code. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives clear conditions and exclusions: it refuses on language-server errors, covers .gd only, and .tscn/assets require a restart. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. restart via runtime_stop/runtime_run), but the scope boundaries make usage unambiguous.

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