Reload session

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds context beyond that: the operation re-reads a local .env file from disk, the session is rebuilt as a side effect, and credentials must not be passed in. That is genuinely useful, though it doesn't discuss failure modes when .env is stale.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, then trigger, then constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 not be detailed, yet the description still notes the ok result and session card. Combined with full annotation coverage and a zero-parameter schema, the definition gives an agent everything required to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly warning against passing cookie values, which clarifies the no-argument contract rather than leaving it implicit.

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: 'Re-read .env cookies and rebuild the HTTP session.' An agent immediately understands the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling check_session, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use after the user updated .env on disk') and a hard constraint ('never pass cookie values as arguments'), which is more than most tools offer. It stops short of naming an alternative such as check_session for the case where the user wants to inspect rather than rebuild.

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