reload_hands

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: side effects limited to the running MCP session's tool inventory, no disk writes, idempotent, no external auth/rate limits, and return value summarized. Very thorough.

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 compact yet dense, with each sentence serving a purpose: main action, side effect, idempotence, auth/rate-limit note, return summary, and usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params) but the description still covers all necessary context: what triggers it, what changes, side effects, return contents, and a pointer for schema details. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema confirms this. The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters', which is a helpful reinforcement, but there is no additional parameter meaning to add beyond that.

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 ('Re-scan'/'rebuild') and resource ('live Hands tool registry'), explaining what changes: new tools become callable and removed tools disappear from tools/list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hands or 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 when to use it: 'Use after editing a kontexta.json mid-session'. It also directs users to a sibling tool for a related but distinct need ('for the schema see describe_hands_schema').

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