reload_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses the potentially disruptive 'drop all open connections' side effect, which is valuable. However, it omits details about whether this is safe, reversible, or what happens to running commands, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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?

One concise sentence that effectively communicates both the primary action and the key consequence. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is reloaded and the consequence of dropping connections. The output schema exists, so return value details are not necessary. Minor gaps remain about prerequisites or post-conditions, but not critical.

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, and the schema confirms this. The description adds meaning about the operation's effect without needing to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 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 action (reload), the resource (inventory file), and the side effect (drop all open connections). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_hosts and check_connection, which have different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implied that it loads hosts from disk, but does not mention scenarios such as after editing the inventory file or troubleshooting stale connections, nor does it distinguish from list_hosts or connect/disconnect tools.

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