kernel_restart

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. It adds meaningful context: pending executions are discarded, the kernel process is replaced, the connection is preserved, and no restart is needed. It also specifies what gets cleared (variables, imports, state). This goes well beyond a bare 'Restart kernel' and discloses the destructive consequences.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The first establishes purpose and scope; the second discloses key behavioral nuances (pendings discarded, connection preserved, no restart needed). Every sentence earns its place and 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present and clear one-paragraph documentation, this is complete. It covers purpose, what gets cleared, side effects (pending executions discarded), and a key post-condition (connection preserved, no kernel_start needed). Nothing significant is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

There are 0 parameters, so the schema needs no explanation. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately doesn't clutter with parameter syntax. Since there are no parameters to document, this dimension is adequately handled.

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 what the tool does: 'Restart the kernel, clearing all variables, imports, and state.' It uses a specific verb (restart) with a clear resource (kernel) and specifies the scope of effect (clearing variables, imports, state). Among siblings it's readily distinguishable from kernel_start, kernel_stop, kernel_interrupt, etc.

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 clarifies that after restarting, 'no need to call kernel_start again,' which is a key usage detail distinguishing it from a full stop+start cycle. It doesn't explicitly say when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the 'connection is preserved' note and the sibling naming convention provide adequate context for selection.

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