restart_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral traits that the operation tears down the existing connection and returns a fresh status. It does not say whether in-flight operations or session state are lost, or confirm GIMP must be running for the restart to succeed, which matters for an operation whose name suggests risk.

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?

One sentence of purpose, then a tight bulleted when-to-use list, then the return contract. Front-loaded and free of filler; every line changes how an agent would decide to call it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return is the new connection status in the same format as check_server, which an agent can resolve from the sibling. Only the side-effect risk on the live session is left unaddressed.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It correctly says nothing about inputs.

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 action on a specific resource: drop and re-establish the connection to the GIMP MCP plugin. It is immediately distinguishable from the other connectivity-adjacent sibling, check_server, which the description positions as a diagnostic rather than a repair.

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?

Three concrete triggering conditions are listed (GIMP restarted after Claude Code, socket dropped mid-session, check_server reports not connected while GIMP is open), which is strong positive guidance. It stops short of explicit negatives, e.g. do not call this when check_server already reports connected, so it falls just under the top mark.

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