system_reconnect

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

The description details the behavior: rebuild client, validate, swap only on success, leave working client on failure. It also notes that rebuilding default host when `host` omitted, and explicitly states it cannot retarget. This goes beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) which are both false, providing rich behavioral context.

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 concise, with three clear paragraphs front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers the purpose, behavior, limitations, and return value. However, it introduces a 'host' parameter that is not in the schema, which is a gap in ensuring the agent can correctly use the tool. Additionally, it does not mention error conditions or prerequisites. Despite this, it is largely complete for a parameterless 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, but the description mentions a 'host' parameter (e.g., 'Rebuilds the default host's client when `host` is omitted'). This parameter is not defined in the schema, creating a contradiction and potential confusion for the agent. The description does not add value for parameter use; it introduces an undocumented parameter.

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's purpose: 'Rebuild a pooled Docker client from its configured endpoint, to recover a wedged connection.' It specifies the action (rebuild), resource (pooled Docker client), and context (recover wedged connection). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it cannot retarget daemons and pointing to an alternative for that.

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 states when to use (to recover a wedged connection) and when not to use (to retarget to a different daemon), and provides an alternative: 'edit DOCKER_MCP_SERVER_HOSTS and restart.' This gives clear guidance.

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