system_reconnect

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: validation before swap, only closing the old client after success, preserving the working client on failure, and return shape confirming connectivity.

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 tight and well-organized: main purpose first, then behavioral details and constraints, then sibling comparisons. Every sentence contributes value, and length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, failure semantics, restrictions, and return value, making it highly complete. The phantom 'host' parameter is a consistency flaw, preventing a perfect score.

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, yet the description states 'Rebuilds the default host's client when `host` is omitted,' implying an optional host parameter that does not exist. This is actively misleading for an agent using the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Rebuild a pooled Docker client') plus the purpose ('to recover a wedged connection'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with system_close and host_list.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (recover a wedged connection), provides a strong exclusion (cannot retarget to a different daemon), and names alternatives (system_close, host_list) with guidance for adding/changing daemons.

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