Reload Project From Disk

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool discards the in-memory cache and reloads from disk. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description provides concrete context for these traits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then context, then a prerequisite. No extraneous information, every sentence 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering behavioral hints, the description is fully adequate. It explains the purpose, usage scenario, and prerequisite, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters.' This is helpful reinforcement. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description does not need to add more, earning baseline 4.

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 verb 'Reload' and the resource 'open project from disk', specifying the action of discarding the in-memory cache. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'open_project' and 'close_project', as it refreshes the current project rather than opening or closing.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when the project has been changed by the Scrivener app or another process while open here'. It also specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires an open project', providing clear context and exclusion criteria.

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