socials_restart_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive action 'Kills stale processes on port 9847' and states it 'restarts WS server.' It also mentions a required user action afterward. While it does not describe side effects on active connections or failure modes, the key behavioral aspects are transparent for a recovery tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the recovery step identifier, and every sentence serves a purpose: triggering condition, action taken, and post-requisite. No fluff or redundant phrasing. The 'AFTER THIS' section is a clear structured step.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what side effects occur (process kill, restart), and what the user should do next. There is no ambiguity about how to invoke or follow up.

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, so there is nothing to explain beyond the empty schema. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but no parameter-specific information is needed. Per rubric baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 tool's action: 'Restart the WebSocket bridge.' It specifies the resource (WebSocket bridge) and the conditions ('when refresh_auth fails or connection is stuck'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like socials_check_access which only checks status. This is a specific verb+resource+scope definition.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when socials_check_access shows ws_server_listening=false or connected=false.' It also provides a clear after-step ('User must refresh Socials extension in browser, then retry socials_check_access'), giving the user a sequential recovery workflow. This goes beyond basic guidance by naming the triggering condition and follow-up.

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