reconnect_gui

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the no-op behavior when already registered, the force override, and that it avoids restarting the MCP server. It does not mention permissions or side effects on an existing GUI worker, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger condition, then the edge case. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-optional-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the already-registered edge case. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the force parameter is already documented. The description still adds practical meaning by framing force as the override for the otherwise-no-op path ('Does nothing... unless force=true'), complementing the schema's phrasing rather than merely repeating it.

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?

States a specific verb pair (relaunch, re-register) with clear resources (GUI worker, proxy server). There are no functionally similar siblings in the list, and the tool's unique identity as the GUI/proxy reconnection mechanism is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition: 'use this when the proxy server was not running when the MCP server started (so the GUI registration failed)'. It also states the negative case ('does nothing if the GUI is already registered, unless force=true'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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