codex_restart_app_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the restart action and refusal conditions, which provides some transparency. However, it does not describe side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is safe to retry. More details on what happens to pending state would improve transparency.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds a key constraint. While concise, adding a brief sentence about parameters would improve without sacrificing efficiency.

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 an output schema exists, the omission of return value details is acceptable. However, the description lacks guidance on parameter usage and typical scenarios (e.g., after code deployment). It covers the basics but leaves the agent to infer how to use the tool effectively, especially with three unchecked parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (start_after_restart, timeout_seconds, force). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but critical details like what 'force' does or how timeout affects behavior are missing. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent guessing.

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 specific target (MCP-owned Codex app-server subprocess). It distinguishes itself from restarting the entire Codex Desktop, making its scope precise. Among siblings, only this tool restarts a process, so purpose 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?

The description explicitly says when the tool will refuse to run (active turns, captures, or pending requests), which guides the agent on safe invocation. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when to use this tool instead of other approaches (e.g., manual restart). Clear context but no explicit alternative comparison.

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