hands.reload

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the side effect scope ('running MCP session's tool inventory only'), declares idempotency, notes no disk writes, and rules out external auth/rate limits. It also states return contents.

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?

Description is information-dense but every sentence adds value: primary effect, side-effect scope, idempotency, auth/rate limits, return values, and usage guidance. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and consequences, followed by supporting details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what will happen, what will not happen, when to invoke it, what it returns, and where to find related schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. The description adds 'Takes no parameters,' reinforcing the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no further parameter documentation is needed.

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?

Description states an explicit action ('Re-scan every registered project's kontexta.json and rebuild the live Hands tool registry') and the observable consequences (new tools callable, removed tools disappear from tools/list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hands.list and hands.confirm.

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?

Description gives explicit trigger condition: 'Use after editing a kontexta.json mid-session.' It also points to hands.list({ schema: true }) for schema details, effectively providing an alternative lookup path. This is precise and actionable.

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