restart_klipper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the confirm gate. It does not say whether the restart aborts an active print, whether it is disruptive or reversible, how long the service is unavailable, or what the printer param controls. For a service-restart mutation this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the precondition. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a virtue in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a no-annotation restart operation with 0% parameter coverage and a second unexplained parameter, the description leaves too much unstated about side effects and scope to let an agent call it safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters (confirm, printer). The description explains only that confirm must be True; the printer parameter (which presumably selects which printer/instance to restart) is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. Only half the parameter surface is addressed, and even that adds little beyond the name.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reinicia Klipper'), which is unambiguous and distinct from any sibling (none of the other tools restart the service). It does not explicitly differentiate from neighbours like run_gcode, but the action itself is unique enough that an agent can select it confidently.

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 only guidance is the precondition 'Requiere confirm=True'. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. run_gcode with a RESTART command) or under what circumstances a restart is warranted. The prerequisite is useful but does not constitute usage routing.

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