faber_service_restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Restart') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires elevated permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., causes downtime), what happens if the service fails to restart, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks the necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main action and immediately specifies the applicable services. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it lacks critical information about what the tool actually does behaviorally (beyond the basic 'restart' action), what to expect as output, error conditions, or operational considerations. For a tool that potentially affects system services, more context about safety and behavior is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters including an enum for 'service' and optionality for 'server'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It lists the same service names as the enum but provides no extra context about parameter usage, format, or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Restart') and the target ('system service'), and lists the specific services that can be restarted (nginx, php, mysql, supervisor, redis). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like faber_server_status or faber_check_app by focusing on service restart operations rather than monitoring or checking. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other potential service management tools that might exist elsewhere.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access), when not to use it (e.g., during peak hours), or what alternatives might exist among the sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit context.

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