yaaif_skill_runtime_reload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Reload in-memory skill runtime'. It does not disclose side effects on running agents, the source from which the runtime is reloaded, whether the operation is disruptive or idempotent, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly efficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Despite the simple interface, this tool likely has operational impact on agents and the skill runtime. The description omits when the reload should be triggered, what effects it has on active sessions, and what the expected outcome is. Without an output schema or annotations, this thin description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to confidently 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 zero parameters and the input schema is fully empty, so the schema already provides complete parameter coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reload in-memory skill runtime for agents') that goes beyond merely restating the tool name. It is clear that this tool performs a reload operation on the skill runtime, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding yaaif_skill_refresh sibling, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many skill-related siblings such as yaaif_skill_refresh, yaaif_skill_validate, or yaaif_skill_runtime_status. The phrase 'for agents' hints at a purpose but does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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