container_restart

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the mutating, two-phase nature of the operation ('stops then starts the container'), which signals potential disruption. It does not detail error handling or return behavior, but the core behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide essential context. Every word earns its place, 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 simplicity of the operation, the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the reason for its existence, and the underlying mechanism. While it doesn't cover return values or edge cases, the absence of an output schema makes that less critical, and the provided context is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter explanations, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters, only implying that 'time' and 'signal' relate to the stop phase. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Restart a WSL container.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling commands like container_start and container_stop by explicitly noting that it executes a stop-then-start sequence due to the lack of a native restart command.

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 provides clear context for when this tool should be used: whenever a restart is needed. It explains why it exists (no native restart in wslc) and implicitly differentiates from stop/start by positioning itself as the composite operation. However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where one would prefer separate stop and start calls.

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