bastion__reconnect

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 usefully signals that success is not guaranteed ('attempt') and frames itself as a no-human-intervention recovery path, but does not disclose failure modes, timeout/retry behavior, or any side effects on existing tool state.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the usage condition. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter recovery tool with no output schema, the definition covers action, trigger, and actor. It could say more about what happens on failure (since 'attempt' implies a possible negative result), but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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% and the single 'server' parameter is already documented as the upstream server name shown by bastion status. The description's 'by name' adds no information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('reconnect a disconnected or failed MCP server') with the scoping constraint 'by name'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools bastion__status, bastion__security, and bastion__compliance.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('after bastion status shows a server is not connected') and the goal ('restore its tools without human intervention'), which routes the agent correctly from the status sibling into this one. No alternatives are left to inference.

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