restart_service

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 says 'Restart' but doesn't disclose side effects like brief service interruption, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating control operation, this lack of transparency is a significant omission.

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 very concise—one sentence plus a parameter explanation. The action is front-loaded and there's no fluff. It could slightly improve by adding a usage note, but as-is it's efficient.

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 it's a state-changing operation with no annotations, the description lacks important context such as what happens on success (return value), whether it requires elevated privileges, or whether it causes downtime. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description doesn't prepare the agent for the operation's impact.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Service name (use list_allowed_services to see valid names)' explains the only parameter and directs the agent to a validation source. This adds real meaning beyond the bare type string.

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 action ('Restart') and the resource ('a WLAN Pi service'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_service and stop_service through the verb. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description only tells the agent to use list_allowed_services to find valid names, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance. It doesn't explain when to prefer restart over start or stop, nor any conditions or prerequisites. This is a clear gap for an operational tool.

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