Restart hyperpanes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that gui keeps panes alive, full flushes a snapshot and kills everything, the daemon exits, and conversations auto-resume. It also explains the speak-first pre-queue behavior, giving a complete picture of side effects.

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 a single dense paragraph with zero fluff. Every sentence delivers critical information: auth requirement, scope behavior, survival semantics, snapshot flush, auto-resume, and optional parameters with an illustrative example. It is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 complexity (destructive full restart, auth restriction, optional params) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides all essential context: behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and parameter usage. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and anticipate consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the implications of each scope value (surviving panes vs full death/restore), and clarifies that sessionId+prompt work together to pre-queue a message. It stops short of describing edge cases like missing sessionId or prompt-only usage, so not a 5.

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 restarts the hyperpanes app itself, distinguishing it from sibling restart_pane by specifying 'root token only' and the two scopes. The verb 'restart' plus the resource 'hyperpanes app' is specific, and the scope details prevent ambiguity.

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 explains the two scopes and their behavioral outcomes, providing clear guidance on when to choose 'gui' vs 'full'. It mentions the root-token requirement and optional sessionId+prompt usage, but does not explicitly name an alternative like 'use restart_pane for individual panes', though the contrast is implied.

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