ecp_supervisor_restart_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Restart' implies a stop-and-start cycle, but the description does not mention potential downtime, whether the process must already exist, or any side effects. It lacks essential context for an agent to anticipate the tool's impact.

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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words, which is efficient. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for a simple operation it is adequately concise.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what happens after the restart, how to identify the process, or any preconditions. An agent has to guess essential details, which is risky for a process-manipulation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name 'app_name' is self-explanatory (likely the process name), but the description adds no nuance about format, required state, or relationship to other tools. It provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('restart') and resource ('supervised process'), which is specific enough to convey the action. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like start and stop because 'restart' is a distinct operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives or explain what restart entails beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that restart implies stopping and starting, nor does it suggest conditions like 'when the process is misbehaving' or 'after configuration changes'. It leaves the choice entirely to inference.

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