desktop_reconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden, and it delivers: it discloses validation and preservation of the backend on failure, the BUSY status, the non-destructive nature (no app restarts or input replay), expiry of all prior IDs, pause state persistence, and the closure of temporary browsers/profiles with unsaved content loss. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and safety.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then systematically covers validation, safety, ID expiry, pause state, and browser cleanup. No filler or redundancy; each clause 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: when to call, how to handle the PID, validation behavior, concurrency, side effects, ID invalidation, pause state, and data loss. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 schema provides no description for session_pid (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining when to omit the PID ('only when exactly one session exists') and implying its purpose. It does not elaborate on the PID's format or how to obtain it, but the name is self-explanatory and the condition is useful. This is adequate compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('reconnect'), a precise resource ('MCP connection to a running XFCE session'), and a clear trigger ('after a desktop restart'). It also differentiates itself by explicitly noting it never restarts apps or replays input, setting it apart from many sibling interaction tools. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 explicit conditions for use: 'after a desktop restart' and the PID omission rule ('Omit PID only when exactly one session exists'). It also cautions about BUSY during other operations. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when NOT to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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