reload_hands

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

Discloses side effect: affects only running MCP session's tool inventory, no disk writes. States idempotent, no external auth or rate limits, and return values. No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits.

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 well-structured: main action, side effect, properties, usage hint. Slightly verbose but all sentences add value. Could be shortened slightly but generally concise.

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 output schema, description explains return: 'per-project load results (counts of registered/disabled tools and any validation warnings).' Covers side effects, usage, and links to schema sibling. Complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%. Description correctly mentions 'Takes no parameters.' No additional info 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?

Clearly states the action: 'Re-scan every registered project's kontexta.json and rebuild the live Hands tool registry.' It distinguishes from sibling tools 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 kontexta.json mid-session' and mentions an alternative for schema (describe_hands_schema). Does not list when not to use, but gives clear context.

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