reload_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: re-reading config and evicting caches. This alerts the agent to potential side effects (cache invalidation). It could mention impact on other tools or need to reauthenticate, but for a zero-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and then the usage trigger. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and the straightforward action, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and when to use it. No information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage by default). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 tool's action ('re-reads the config file from disk and evicts all cached project runtimes') and explicitly distinguishes its use case from siblings by referencing when to use it ('after the user says they have changed their firebase-mcp.json config').

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 usage guidance by stating when to use this tool (after config changes). While it doesn't list when not to use it or alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies usage boundaries. It effectively communicates the primary use case.

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