reload_script

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral info: file's directory is auto-added to sys.path, and it implies the tool reloads modules. However, it does not cover error handling, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens on initial load vs reload. More detail would help.

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 structured sections: purpose, when-to-use workflow, sys.path note, and Args. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, no return details needed. The description explains core functionality, workflow, and parameter meaning. It lacks error handling info but is otherwise complete for a tool with sibling execute_script differentiation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly explains both parameters under 'Args': file_path is 'Path to the Python file on disk' and module_name is 'Optional module name to reload'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 it loads a Python controller or module from disk, distinguishes itself from execute_script by specifying persistent controllers and longer code, and uses specific verbs like 'load' and 'reload'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of execute_script for persistent controllers, state machines, or any code longer than ~20 lines', providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming an alternative.

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