reload_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it scopes the effect ('Does not restart the TCP listener'), states a concrete failure signature (404 = stale command table), and gives a recovery procedure. It stops short of stating idempotency or whether an in-flight session/scene state is disturbed by the reload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then prerequisite, then scope limit, then failure/recovery. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, parameter count is zero, and the description covers the remaining unknowns an agent needs: when to call it, what it does not do, and how to recover from the documented failure mode.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on preconditions.

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 (reload) and a precise resource (houdinimcp handler modules in the live houdini-bin), which no sibling tool touches. An agent can immediately distinguish this from restart_renderer, ping, or execute_code-based workarounds.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('After scripts/install.py --houdini-version 22.0, call this so new command keys exist without restarting H22') and names the alternative path (execute_code with bootstrap_reload) plus the exact condition under which that alternative is required (a 404).

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