hands_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effect scope (running session's tool inventory only, no disk writes), idempotency, absence of external auth/rate limits, and the shape of per-project load results including validation warnings.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action and its effect come first, then side-effect/auth caveats, then invocation guidance. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (per-project registered/disabled counts and validation warnings), and covers side effects, idempotency, and auth, leaving nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline is 4; the description confirms 'Takes no parameters', leaving no ambiguity for the agent about arguments.

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?

Specific verb ('Re-scan', 'rebuild') plus resource ('registered project's kontexta.json', 'live Hands tool registry'), with the concrete consequence that newly-declared tools become callable and removed ones disappear from tools/list. It also differentiates itself from sibling hands_list by pointing to it for 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?

Explicitly states when to invoke: 'Use after editing a kontexta.json mid-session', and routes schema queries to hands_list({ schema: true }). It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or contrast against siblings like admin_refresh_session_context.

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