reload_hands

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

Describes side effect (MCP session inventory only, no disk writes), idempotency, lack of auth/rate limits, and return value (per-project load results). Since annotations are absent, this level of detail fully compensates.

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-load purpose, then side effects and usage. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations, empty schema, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, side effects, usage context, idempotency, auth, and return type. It also references a sibling tool for schema details.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' confirming the schema. No additional param info needed, baseline 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to re-scan registered projects' ctxnest.json and rebuild the tool registry. It specifies verb (re-scan, rebuild), resource (project configurations), and scope (live registry). This distinguishes it from siblings like describe_hands_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?

Explicitly says 'Use after editing a ctxnest.json mid-session' and points to 'describe_hands_schema' for schema reference. While it doesn't enumerate when not to use it, the given scenario is specific and covers typical use.

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