system_reconnect

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description explains the safety-critical behavior: the rebuilt client is validated before the old one is closed, so a failed rebuild preserves the working client. It also discloses the limitation about not retargeting daemons and explains the return shape. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then adding important behavioral details in a logical order. It is concise enough given the amount of necessary context, and every sentence contributes meaning—no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary bases: what it does, why it exists, safety behavior, limitations, alternatives, and return value shape. It is fully self-contained and leaves no important gap in the agent's understanding.

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 declares zero parameters, but the description references a `host` parameter ('Rebuilds the default host's client when `host` is omitted'), which is misleading given the schema. With no parameters defined, the description should not imply an optional parameter that cannot be passed. This creates ambiguity about how to invoke the tool and undermines the otherwise clear semantics.

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 specific action: 'Rebuild a pooled Docker client from its configured endpoint, to recover a wedged connection.' It distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly mentioning system_close and host_list, and by stating what it cannot do (retarget to a different daemon). This gives a precise verb+resource+scope definition.

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 gives an explicit use case ('to recover a wedged connection'), tells the user when not to use it ('CANNOT retarget to a different daemon'), and names alternatives: edit DOCKER_MCP_SERVER_HOSTS for adding/changing daemons, system_close for closing without rebuilding, and host_list for showing endpoints. This is excellent when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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