Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose (recovery/reset) that goes beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat those safety aspects. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage context, then documents parameters and return value in a clear format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 this is a relatively simple operation with good annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) and an output schema that documents the return type, the description provides adequate context. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and documents the single parameter. For a restart operation, this is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter and its purpose. This compensates somewhat for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format details beyond what's implied. With only one parameter, the baseline would be 4, but the description adds marginal value beyond the schema structure.

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 ('Restart') and resource ('a computer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'orgo_stop_computer' or 'orgo_start_computer' beyond the restart action.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('recovering from unresponsive states or resetting to a clean environment'), which is helpful for an agent. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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