magg_reload_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that service may be briefly interrupted for affected servers and provides a step-by-step breakdown of operations. It could add details on prerequisites or error handling, but current coverage is good.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, numbered steps, and a separate note. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the main effects and process. It lacks details on the return value (though output schema handles that) and error conditions, but is otherwise complete for a no-input 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter explanations, but it could explicitly state that no arguments are required. Since it's implicit from schema, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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, with a step-by-step breakdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage individual servers (e.g., magg_add_server) by focusing on the config reload process.

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 explains the process and notes alternative trigger via SIGHUP, giving context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other tools that might achieve similar effects.

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