reload_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses that reloading occurs in every connected session, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., state loss, script re-execution, or whether existing sessions will be disrupted). For a reload operation without annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action, target, and scope. No filler words; every element earns its place.

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 description is technically sufficient for a parameterless tool but lacks usage context and behavioral side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent would still be uncertain about when to invoke it and what happens to sessions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation is 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?

The description clearly states a specific action (hot-reload), a specific resource (plugin/Core.luau), and a scope (every connected session). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_luau (arbitrary code execution) and sync_project (project syncing).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The hot-reload wording implies usage after editing Core.luau, but the description does not state when to prefer this over run_luau or other siblings, leaving usage to the agent's inference.

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