reconnect

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it validates the rebuilt client before swapping, closes the old client only after success, and notes that a failed rebuild leaves the working client intact. It also describes the return value shape (same as `version`). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Description is well-structured: first sentence states primary action and use case, second adds safety detail, third clarifies limitation, and then lists arguments and return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and return shape well. However, the mention of a non-existent 'host' parameter is confusing and slightly undermines completeness.

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?

Although schema shows no parameters, the description mentions an argument 'host' (host label or None). This conflicts with the empty input schema and could mislead the agent. Schema coverage is 100% (by absence), so the description should not add phantom parameters.

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 and resource: 'Rebuild a pooled Docker client... to recover a wedged connection.' It clearly distinguishes from other tools by highlighting that it cannot retarget daemons, and the sibling list includes many other Docker tools but none that recover connections similarly.

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 says when to use (to recover a wedged connection) and when not to use (cannot retarget daemon). It provides an alternative action: edit DOCKER_MCP_SERVER_HOSTS and restart to add/change a daemon.

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