magg_reload_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the three steps (re-read, detect changes, apply) and notes potential service interruption. However, it lacks information about error handling or safety of repeated calls.

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 concise with a clear opening statement, a bullet list of steps, and a helpful note. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's behavior and purpose. It could mention what happens on error or the return format, but those are minor omissions.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter description is needed. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are required.

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 reloads configuration from disk and applies changes, using specific verbs like 'reload' and 'apply'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that add/remove servers (e.g., magg_add_server) by focusing on configuration management.

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?

The description implies usage when configuration changes need to be applied from disk. It mentions an alternative trigger (SIGHUP) but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it directly to siblings.

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