restart_searxng_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Restart' and the mechanism 'via subprocess', without detailing side effects, required permissions, potential downtime, or error behavior. It lacks meaningful transparency about operational consequences.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence action statement followed by a brief Args block. Every piece of text contributes useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no required inputs, output schema present), the description adequately covers the core action and parameter semantics. However, it omits any operational context such as prerequisites (e.g., Docker running) or expected effects beyond the restart, leaving minor gaps for a full 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 schema provides minimal info for the single optional parameter 'container_name' with a default of null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is the Docker container name and defaults to SEARXNG_CONTAINER_NAME, adding clarity about the default behavior and the parameter's meaning.

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 function: 'Restart the SearXNG Docker container via subprocess.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools which focus on settings and engine status, not container lifecycle.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any context such as when a restart is needed. The description only mentions the default container name parameter, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which the tool should be invoked.

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